|
Clara posted:JKR gave a lot of information about what everyone did after school in interviews. http://www.beyondhogwarts.com/harry-potter/articles/jk-rowling-goes-beyond-the-epilogue.html Okay so Harry and Ron do become Aurors, good. Thanks for this.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
But the addendum from that link says that she apparently retconned that in a different interview:quote:Contrary to a quote in an earlier interview, J.K. says Ron Weasley joined his brother, George, as a partner at their successful joke shop, Weasley's Wizard Wheezes. George named his first child and son Fred, and he goes on to have a very successful career, helped by Ron.  To change the subject, my BOYFRIEND glanced over my copy of OotP this afternoon and asked me an interesting question: why is it so important that Neville could have also fit the prophecy that Voldemort acted on? I think it's to establish that Harry isn't inherently special, but I want to know what you all think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 00:00
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:But the addendum from that link says that she apparently retconned that in a different interview: first child and son Fred could hilariously imply that he had a son and daughter called Fred. Yeah, you're 100% right about the Neville thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 00:39
|
|
|
Oh my, Mark (of Mark Reads Harry Potter) did not respond well to Sirius's death  Pththya-lyi posted:To change the subject, my BOYFRIEND glanced over my copy of OotP this afternoon and asked me an interesting question: why is it so important that Neville could have also fit the prophecy that Voldemort acted on? I think it's to establish that Harry isn't inherently special, but I want to know what you all think. It's important because it demonstrates that the prophecy is a self-fulfilling one. Remember, the prophecy did not say "The dark lord and some young boy will fight to the death!", it said "The dark lord will choose some young boy who fits the following criteria, mark him as his equal, and only then will he be forced to fight him to the death." Neville and Harry both fit the criteria (born at the end of July to parents who pissed off Voldemort 3 times), but if Voldemort hadn't decided on one and "marked him" as his equal, he wouldn't have been affected by the prophecy at all and would be invincible. Basically Voldemort didn't hear the whole thing (you find out why in book 6), and so he wanted to get the prophecy orb so he could hear the full terms of his destiny.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 02:42
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:Oh my, Mark (of Mark Reads Harry Potter) did not respond well to Sirius's death Then people posted this in the comments: quote:ITS CURTAINS FOR YOU, SIRIUS BLACK. quote:LACY, GENTLY WAFTING CURTAINS. And gently caress me I could not stop laughing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 03:01
|
|
|
I want to hug him sometimes 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 03:04
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:Oh my, Mark (of Mark Reads Harry Potter) did not respond well to Sirius's death Thanks for saying it better than I ever could. It also showed the nature vs. nurture aspect of childhood: both Harry and Neville grew up in crappy households with adopted family but Harry was told he was The Boy Who Lived, received tons of special attention from the school and the wizarding world at large, was rich through inheritance, and through his fame met Ron and Hermione who were instrumental in him becoming who he was, and got to go on all sorts of crazy adventures that forced him to grow and improve. By comparison Neville was alone, overlooked by people at school, and was pretty much just a chubby and awkward loser with no friends. But as time went on he grew up, found purpose thanks to Harry and Dumbledore's Army, and wound up a kickass mage who rivaled Harry with some of his combat spells he learned at DA. Had things played out differently Harry could have been a shy and awkward Muggle-born while Neville was The Boy Who Lived and received the special attention and friendship necessary to make him realize his potential sooner.
...of SCIENCE! fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Sep 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 03:14
|
|
|
I never had the impression Neville grew up in a crappy household. Sure, his grandmother and the rest of the family were apparently quite strict and especially harsh when trying to get him to show some magical talent (his great-uncle holding him out of the window) and were seemingly disappointed that he didn't show his parent's abilities for a long time, but it didn't seem that they didn't love him or didn't care for him, especially once he found something he liked and was good in (Herbology and the plants he got from his relatives over the years). But yeah, the world would have been screwed if Neville was the Boy-Who-Lived, simply because he lacked the unique Invisibility Cloak, which was instrumental in nearly all books - although it could have made for a neat Un Lun Dun-like twist regarding the Chosen One. Decius fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Sep 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 06:01
|
|
|
Decius posted:I never had the impression Neville grew up in a crappy household. Sure, his grandmother and the rest of the family were apparently quite strict and especially harsh when trying to get him to show some magical talent (his great-uncle holding him out of the window) and were seemingly disappointed that he didn't show his parent's abilities for a long time, but it didn't seem that they didn't love him or didn't care for him, especially once he found something he liked and was good in (Herbology and the plants he got from his relatives over the years). The invisibility cloak thing is a great point and probably shows that the whole Neville thing was something Rowling shoehorned in and wasn't really thinking about early on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 13:40
|
|
|
Some people have faith in Neville's abilities. I once saw someone wearing this t-shirt:
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 14:39
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:The invisibility cloak thing is a great point and probably shows that the whole Neville thing was something Rowling shoehorned in and wasn't really thinking about early on. To be honest, I just re-read the 7th book and the whole thing felt way rushed. It was the epitome of "Show, don't tell." - every big reveal is just dumped on harry/the reader without any information or chances to figure it out before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 15:26
|
|
|
So I just discovered the magic that is A Very Potter Musical. There are some audio issues (sometimes the instruments drown out the singing, or the spoken dialogue is a little quiet) but it is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while. The sequel, A Very Potter Sequel, is pretty good too, but not as funny as the original.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 23:28
|
|
|
Soy Sauce Beast posted:So I just discovered the magic that is A Very Potter Musical. There are some audio issues (sometimes the instruments drown out the singing, or the spoken dialogue is a little quiet) but it is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while. I love this show. The guy who plays Voldemort is so hot. Have you seen the non-Potter musical they've done, called Me & My Dick? It has a lot of the same cast, and is absolutely hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 02:21
|
|
|
Soy Sauce Beast posted:So I just discovered the magic that is A Very Potter Musical. There are some audio issues (sometimes the instruments drown out the singing, or the spoken dialogue is a little quiet) but it is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while. If it's wrong for me to like how they do Umbridge in this then I never, ever, want to be right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 05:35
|
|
|
Obligatory Toast posted:If it's wrong for me to like how they do Umbridge in this then I never, ever, want to be right. Honestly, I love how the portray nearly all the characters. I love Harry as a kind of arrogant douche (I'm Harry freaking Potter!), and I love how Draco is always randomly rolling/sliding along the floor. And Goyle floors me every time he speaks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 18:11
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:It's not that the Hufflepuffs are dumb, exactly - some, such as Cedric Diggory, get good grades - they're just not very street-smart. They are hard-working and persistent people who don't shy away from unglamorous work, and while these traits are unlikely to win them any glory, they're certainly not anything to be ashamed of. The Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality thing someone posted earlier had a pretty good take on this. The house doesn't reflect how smart or evil or whatever you are so much as your basic motivation. So being in Ravenclaw means you're driven by the pursuit of knowledge, not necessarily actually smarter than people in other houses. So I don't know, if one doctor at a research lab was motivated by wanting to understand the human body he'd be a Ravenclaw, and another by trying to save people from a disease he'd be Gryffindor. Even though they're doing the exact same job and are just as intelligent as each other. In that view, Hufflepuffs would probably have friendship, family, maybe civic duty or whatever as basic motivations, but wouldn't necessarily be dumber or less brave or cunning than anyone else. Which actually makes them sound like pretty normal, cool people. (Slytherins' basic motivation would just be ambition, I guess. Not necessarily evil). That seemed to make a lot more sense than "smart people here, protagonists here, villains over there and the hapless chumps left over go stand in the corner."
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 18:17
|
|
|
Soy Sauce Beast posted:So I just discovered the magic that is A Very Potter Musical. There are some audio issues (sometimes the instruments drown out the singing, or the spoken dialogue is a little quiet) but it is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while. Oh geez, this is amazing. Draco sliding all over the place is hilarious and all the Hufflepuff jokes are great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 04:11
|
|
|
Soy Sauce Beast posted:So I just discovered the magic that is A Very Potter Musical. There are some audio issues (sometimes the instruments drown out the singing, or the spoken dialogue is a little quiet) but it is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while. This is very very well done, much funnier than I expected it to be. Also I never thought I'd say this but I have a crush on this Draco Malfoy. blankoblanco fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Sep 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 14:41
|
|
|
It's so loving great  The dude who plays Harry wrote all the music and lyrics, which is pretty loving awesome. I gotta say my favourite character in it is Dumbledore, followed closely by Draco. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 15:09
|
|
|
Soy Sauce Beast posted:A Very Potter Musical Is this fully subtitled anywhere? Youtube only gives me certain parts subtitled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 16:44
|
|
|
daggerdragon posted:Is this fully subtitled anywhere? Youtube only gives me certain parts subtitled. I'm not sure, but I'm sure the creators would know. http://www.teamstarkid.com/
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
Six and a half billion pages later and I'm done with Order. The "each book is better than the last" trend holds true five books in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 23:54
|
|
|
FrensaGeran posted:Six and a half billion pages later and I'm done with Order. The "each book is better than the last" trend holds true five books in. Congrats! The trend will probably hold up for the 6th and 7th - which is good because they're both shorter than OotP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 00:13
|
|
|
Suprfli6 posted:See, I hate that. It basically means free will can't exist, because if that wasn't the case, then Harry could randomly decide to travel back to that time once again and change everything. But in this system of time travel, since it didn't already happen, it never has or never will. Of course he has free will. It's just that if he had ever in the future decided he'd do those things and had the means to do them, they would have happened that night. Clearly he never decides to do them as they never happened. If he had, they would have. But "oh", you say. "What if he changes his mind later and tries to go back?" To which I would reply, "He wouldn't. Because he didn't." The mere fact that there were only two Harrys there that night proves that at no point in the future would Harry ever travel back through time to change that moment. If he ever did, this third Harry would have been there that night, stopping himself for whatever reason. In this fictitious world changing the past is exactly the same as trying to change the past in our world. The fact that they have time-travel has no bearing on this fact; You can't. Because you didn't. There is one timeline and it can never be changed. This does not preclude free will. It just factors all of your future time-traveling decisions into the fabric of the timeline. Assuming you have a time-turner, it's not "Why can't I travel back in time to kill my parents?" or whatever you'd do you should be asking. It's "Why didn't I?" Because you clearly could. And didn't. This argument has been had in Lost, Terminator, Back to the Future and Bill and Ted threads on these very forums and I just can't help myself getting sucked into them. I really do find it impossibly interesting how so many people just can't wrap their heads around it. It's all, "But in the original timeline-" "We saw the original timeline. There's only one." "No, I mean the one where X NEVER traveled back in time. How did Y happen?" "No. There was never a time where that didn't happen. It's a causal loop. There's only one timeline and it always happened this way." "But what about the ORIGINAL timeline where-" "Ugh."
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2010 15:06
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:This argument has been had in Lost, Terminator, Back to the Future and Bill and Ted threads on these very forums and I just can't help myself getting sucked into them. I really do find it impossibly interesting how so many people just can't wrap their heads around it. It's all, Your argument works well for Harry Potter and maybe the first Terminator, but Back to the Future and Terminator 2 violate the "you can't change the past" rule. There is an "original" and "new" timeline in those conceptions. That is why when someone does time travel right people can't get their head around it. Maybe we have Star Trek to blame, they did this poo poo all the time. Happily Harry Potter does not fall into this trap. As you say the question isn't "why can't I?" it's "why didn't I?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2010 18:29
|
|
|
I laughed when the Time Room was stuffed to the brim with Turners. Rowling was like "Oh you don't like my little narrative albatross? What if there's a million of 'em, bitches?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2010 21:24
|
|
|
Obligatory Toast posted:Congrats! The trend will probably hold up for the 6th and 7th - which is good because they're both shorter than OotP. Which is a shame actually, both books would've done exceptionally well if she had expanded upon them. In the 6th adding in some more information about Voldemort and in the 7th going into a bit more detail concerning the world's current state would have really brought it all together.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
caleramaen posted:Your argument works well for Harry Potter and maybe the first Terminator, but Back to the Future and Terminator 2 violate the "you can't change the past" rule. There is an "original" and "new" timeline in those conceptions. That is why when someone does time travel right people can't get their head around it. Maybe we have Star Trek to blame, they did this poo poo all the time. Happily Harry Potter does not fall into this trap. As you say the question isn't "why can't I?" it's "why didn't I?" I'm also gonna' cross post this from the CD Deathly Hallows thread. LividLiquid posted:I swear, man. Sometimes nerds would rather the fake cartoonish science made sense to having a good story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 02:19
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Right. Even in those discussions we mentioned how both Back to the Future and Terminator changed their own rules multiple times. Except the third Terminator movie firmly established that that universe follows the "what happened, happened" rule. (As terrible as that movie was, it did do that.) Back to the Future was a comedy based on the premise you actually can change the past.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 13:56
|
|
|
Quick question, why didn't the US get a cover as rad as this That's some bullshit right there
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 17:11
|
|
|
Dickeye posted:Quick question, why didn't the US get a cover as rad as this Quite possibly they thought the unmitigated sheer awesomeness of that cover might liquify the insides of the children Harry Potter books are aimed at. Or because they knew it would sell in the millions even if it had a picture of a turd on the cover.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
LooseChanj posted:I think this is a problem with any story involving magic in a modern setting. There just aren't a whole lot of normal everyday problems technology hasn't solved. I should test this theory by reading a Dresden novel or something. This is actually explained a lot better in Dresden Files: Magic and technology don't mix. The newer something is, technology-wise, the better the chances of it exploding around him. He can't even have cassettes or credit cards. The magnetic strip and the tape just stop working. He gets around it by askign other people to do it for him though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 17:41
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:Quite possibly they thought the unmitigated sheer awesomeness of that cover might liquify the insides of the children Harry Potter books are aimed at. Or because they knew it would sell in the millions even if it had a picture of a turd on the cover. Or they were afraid that the anti-Harry Potter bible thumpers would have more ammo. "See it's evil! There's a black, dead looking, flying horse on the cover." Or the sheer awesomeness/liquefying bit. Both seem plausible. Hilts fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Sep 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 17:43
|
|
|
Dickeye posted:This is actually explained a lot better in Dresden Files: Magic and technology don't mix. The newer something is, technology-wise, the better the chances of it exploding around him. He can't even have cassettes or credit cards. The magnetic strip and the tape just stop working. Also, Magic is costly in the Dresden-universe for humans at least (in terms of concentration, exhaustion, physical and mental well-being and/or ingredients), so it isn't really used much for mundane tasks like warming up your soup. Which puts Harry Dresden in a world of poo poo regarding regular warm showers. It's different for "magical" beings, but they run into other problems outside of the Nevernever (a kind of spirit/fairy world) - like for example fairy magic being powerful but only very short-term.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 17:51
|
|
|
Dickeye posted:Quick question, why didn't the US get a cover as rad as this We never get good covers of anything in the US.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 17:57
|
|
|
Dickeye posted:Quick question, why didn't the US get a cover as rad as this Because we'd poo poo ourselves to death from awesome. I mean, Jesus poo poo. Look at it. I have to go change pants now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
Dickeye posted:This is actually explained a lot better in Dresden Files: Magic and technology don't mix. The newer something is, technology-wise, the better the chances of it exploding around him. He can't even have cassettes or credit cards. The magnetic strip and the tape just stop working. Also in the game Arcanum, technology operates within the laws of physics while magic exists by warping the rules of physics so they are fundamentally incompatible; just the presence of magic user causes the friction and tensile strength or metals of change, the digits of pi to alter slightly, etc. So a magic user might have to ride way back in the caboose of a train so as not to interfere with the engine by being too close to it, and even then a significantly powerful wizard wouldn't be allowed on at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 18:21
|
|
|
IRQ posted:We never get good covers of anything in the US. Don't complain. The UK/Canadian editions have terrible covers, especially Philosopher's Stone. The only good one was Order of the Phoenix and maybe Goblet of Fire. We also don't get any chapter illustrations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 18:47
|
|
|
Dimentia posted:Don't complain. The UK/Canadian editions have terrible covers, especially Philosopher's Stone. The only good one was Order of the Phoenix and maybe Goblet of Fire. We also don't get any chapter illustrations. I was always rather fond of this one:  It's the "adult" UK cover of Philosopher's Stone. It's no great shakes as a cover, but it's the first HP book I bought, pretty much on a whim after seeing an article in the Times about how Bloomsbury were republishing a children's book with an "adult" cover after it was proving to be so popular.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
Dickeye posted:This is actually explained a lot better in Dresden Files: Magic and technology don't mix. That's the way The Magicians did it too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 23:02
|
|