Reconciling assholes for nearly a decade.

Harry Potter (spoilers)

OK, it's been a few days and people have presumably completed the book (even the 7th graders)


First question: Why was Draco Malfoy the master of Dumbledore's wand?

If I understand it right -- Dumbledore put on the horcrux ring, which (naturally, being created by Voldemort) was cursed and was eventually going to kill him within the year.  Snape killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders (suicide by magical proxy) -- did the wand know this, and thus Snape wasn't the new owner?  So how did Draco enter this?
Permalink Send private email xampl 
July 23rd, 2007 8:31pm
Go back to the scene in the previous book where Dumbledore dies.
Permalink Aaron 
July 23rd, 2007 10:45pm
Damn, I don't have the previous book.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 23rd, 2007 10:46pm
Wikipedia is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows

The detailed plot summary explains it.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
July 24th, 2007 12:07am
Dana: How in the world can you read book 7 w/out reading the previous ones?  Or did "I don't have it" mean you just don't have a copy handy?
Permalink Send private email Ward 
July 24th, 2007 12:08am
I've read all of them, more than once.  I just don't own all of them.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 24th, 2007 7:25am
Rowling does it very cleverly.

When Dumbledore and Harry return from their mission to recover the locket, they land on the top of a tower at Hogwarts. 

The next thing Harry hears is "Expelliarmis"!  Yet Harry himself is petrified -- which is not an effect of that spell.

Harry then realizes that it is Draco Malfoy standing there, and that Dumbledore must have done the petrify spell silently, giving Malfoy time to disarm Dumbledore.  Thus, in Book 7, Malfoy is the one who 'conquered' the wand from Dumbledore.

I say cleverly, because by not actually saying "Draco said "Expelliarmus!" and disarmed Dumbledore" -- Rowling minimized the importance the reader will understand.  So, while not actually hiding who disarmed Dumbledore, the message is sufficiently indirect that the reader thinks it's irrelevant.

Until you read in book #7 how critical that fact actually is.  Which then causes you to re-understand (and in fact re-read that part of book #6) to make sure you figure out what really did happen.

This "indirection" is how Rowling adds layer of fact, then layer of understanding, then more fact, then more understanding.  It makes a hugely fascinating story cycle, where with every new book you want to re-read the old books with your new understanding.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 24th, 2007 10:23am
I totally have a list of everyone who died.  Mwaaahaaaahaaa.
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
July 24th, 2007 10:41am
> This "indirection" is how Rowling adds layer of fac

Thank you for the explanation and analysis. I too couldn't figure out that little twist of history.

And I think your analysis goes a long way to showing she is very good writer, something many people simply want to deny.
Permalink son of parnas 
July 24th, 2007 11:21am
So far, everyone who's said that Rowling is not a good writer, or peg the series as "children's books" haven't actually *read* any of the books.

Read the whole series, then feel free to comment.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 24th, 2007 11:23am
>So far, everyone who's said that Rowling is not a good
>writer, or peg the series as "children's books" haven't
>actually *read* any of the books.

You can count me as one of those people (except I have read two of them).
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 24th, 2007 2:40pm
>Read the whole series, then feel free to comment.

I guess your idea here is that if you have enough patience to trawl through the entire series *and* hate them you must be insane and therefore your opinion can be discounted, right?

So by that logic, the books are perfect because 100% of readers who read the entire series (and aren't crazy) love them.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 24th, 2007 2:42pm
What, Colm? 

1.  You don't think Rowling is a good writer?

2.  You think HP is a kid's book series?

both?  Neither?

I'm copacetic either way, as is Ms. Rowling, she's been paid already. (and probably will continue to be paid as additional movies come out, and collections of the books are made)

I'm not interested in forcing people to read them, or not read them, or have an opinion about them in any direction.  Personally, I quite like them, and think they're well done, and when anybody makes millions (billions?) of dollars off a created work, I'm curious as to how that happened.

I think they'll join the canon of The Lord of the Rings, the Narnia series, Alice in Wonderland, maybe the Oz books.  But that's not really important.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 24th, 2007 3:04pm
>>> I guess your idea here is that if you have enough patience to trawl through the entire series *and* hate them you must be insane and therefore your opinion can be discounted, right?

No, but if you're going to say "Rowling can't write" or "the whole series is shit" but you haven't read it all, _then_ your opinion can be discounted.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
July 24th, 2007 3:20pm
The first couple of books do have a children's book feel to them, but that rapidly dissipates as the plot thickens and Harry ages.

It's fascinating how Rowling keys the tone of the book to Harry's actual age.  By the time the series ends, he's virtually an adult, and the book reflects that.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 24th, 2007 3:35pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics