Cal Posted August 7, 2007 Report Posted August 7, 2007 Fred, Tonks and Lupin! And what kind of a name is Albus Severus Potter anyway?
Cerise Posted August 7, 2007 Report Posted August 7, 2007 I know, that's what I was thinking about the name They all called them pretty weird stuff actually. What ever happened to normal names?
HeavenForbid Posted August 7, 2007 Report Posted August 7, 2007 Ok, so I have read the book, but sometimes dont make sense to me 1) How is the true master of the Elder Wand, Draco? 2) There are 7 horcruxes, yes? The cup, locket, snake, Harry, ring, The Ravenclaw thing and the diary But, then we find out that The Resurrection Stone is one, aswell. So does the mean there is 8?
Cerise Posted August 7, 2007 Report Posted August 7, 2007 With Harry, he created his 8th horcrux... I think... I dunno. My memory is blank.
emmasi Posted August 7, 2007 Report Posted August 7, 2007 ^The Resurection Stone was IN the ring. Voldemort didn't know what it was when he made a Horcrux out of it. And oh my god, I can't believe you asked about Draco. As soon as I read "There's some things I don't understand," I thought - Draco!! Okay, I had to go to a site exclusively for adults to ask about this - so you know that they're all smarter when it comes to figuring out these things than we are - and the answer I got was this: Draco defeated Dumbledore by disarming him, using Expalliarmus. And because Dumbledore was disarmed of the Elder wand, Draco became it's rightful owner. What I don't understand is, if Harry defeated Draco while Draco was using the hawthorn wand, shouldn't Harry have only gotten control of THAT wand? The person I asked said that the Elder wand knew that Draco had been defeated by Harry, and it didn't matter that it was burried with Dumbledore at the time - it still knew. So then it's alleigance went to Harry... I'm still not convinced of it though. I think it was all completely contrived and unecessary. And irritating. Like most of the book, really. Except "The Forest Again," and parts of "King's Cross." Those two were keepers.
Cal Posted August 7, 2007 Report Posted August 7, 2007 I didn't understand "King's Cross" Okay, I knew the jist of it, but what the hell was the thing bundled up under the chair that annoyed ME so much?
emmasi Posted August 7, 2007 Report Posted August 7, 2007 I'm pretty sure it was meant to be Voldemort if he was to ever truly feel remourse for all the things that he's done - basically it was an image of his Hell within Harry's Heaven. I think it was there to symbolise the fact that that part of Voldemort's soul was now seperate from Harry, and dead. Hence it being present in the afterlife. That's what King's Cross was - the afterlife, as Harry imagined it to be. It was the limbo between life and death. Harry's mind envisioned it as a train station - King's Cross, where he was first taken away from the Dursley's and went on to his true home at Hogwarts - because it mirrored the decision he had to make: go back to life where there's pain and suffering, or go on to death where he would be at peace, but his friends would have to suffer alone. Harry chose to live. So that's the train he took out of the station.
flutterby Posted August 8, 2007 Report Posted August 8, 2007 ^The Resurection Stone was IN the ring. Voldemort didn't know what it was when he made a Horcrux out of it. And oh my god, I can't believe you asked about Draco. As soon as I read "There's some things I don't understand," I thought - Draco!! Okay, I had to go to a site exclusively for adults to ask about this - so you know that they're all smarter when it comes to figuring out these things than we are - and the answer I got was this: Draco defeated Dumbledore by disarming him, using Expalliarmus. And because Dumbledore was disarmed of the Elder wand, Draco became it's rightful owner. What I don't understand is, if Harry defeated Draco while Draco was using the hawthorn wand, shouldn't Harry have only gotten control of THAT wand? The person I asked said that the Elder wand knew that Draco had been defeated by Harry, and it didn't matter that it was burried with Dumbledore at the time - it still knew. So then it's alleigance went to Harry... I'm still not convinced of it though. I think it was all completely contrived and unecessary. And irritating. Like most of the book, really. Except "The Forest Again," and parts of "King's Cross." Those two were keepers. I think the explanation was that the wand felt it's master being disarmed, the wand can't tell if it was being used at the time but recognises the magic used against its master.
Jen Posted August 9, 2007 Report Posted August 9, 2007 Finally got my copy of the book! *happy dance* Haven't atarted reading yet, but yes, I know what happens. But somehow I don't think I can appreciate it until I've read it for myself. ASIDE: Anyone from Perth? In the STM Entertainment on 1st July 2007, there was an article about HP5 with a large pic of Daniel, Rupert and Emma. Does anyone possibly have it or would be able to scan it?
Cal Posted August 19, 2007 Report Posted August 19, 2007 My sister came back from LA a few weeks ago and she went in to a HP shop... She bought me a Chocolate Frog - with a wizard card! And the Every flavour beans.... which are disgusting. The rotten egg and vomit ones are hideous.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.