|
Post by Chocolatepot on Mar 2, 2009 19:38:11 GMT -5
When harry is getting his wand, Ollivander tells him that his wand and Voldie's have the same core. That the phoenix (Fawkes) gave "just two feathers". Yet in OotP (to verify the legitimacy of messages sent) a Fawkes tailfeather lands with the messages. I think that one's not really a hole. Fawkes only gave two tailfeathers to Ollivander for wands to be made from. Possibly phoenixes are so hardcore that their feathers can only be made into wands if they give permission.
|
|
|
Post by Author By Night on Mar 2, 2009 19:39:18 GMT -5
Just one example: When asked how Harry got the Map back when Snape had confiscated it, Jo said she thought it was obvious Harry had sneaked into Snape's office and grabbed it. It might be obvious for the author, who knows a lot more than she puts down on the page, but it's not obvious for the reader. A beta reader picks up on such things. Do we know JK Rowling doesn't let anyone read anything? Also, I sometimes wonder if anyone else really didn't think much of the "map issue." I figured something like that had happened, hadn't even seen it as an issue. That being said, I do think that JK Rowling expects her readers to come up a lot of their own conclusions. One example is Slytherin - she doesn't want us to think they're all bad, and yet she goes out of her way to mention that they were the only house not represented by the DA in TDH. However, she also mentions in the same chat that the Slytherins left to get the younger students to safety, and came back; I don't believe that's in the books, and if it is, it's there very briefly. I don't think it's a bad choice - in fact, I like that she does it. But it can be confusing, even for her older readers. (Maybe especially, actually - younger readers tend to take things for granted.)
|
|
|
Post by pigwithhair on Mar 2, 2009 19:57:06 GMT -5
I agree with chocolatepot that the Fawkes tail feather thing isn't really a hole. Recall that Fawkes regularly dies and is reborn from the ashes so while he may only have ever provided two tail feathers for wands, he still has new tail feathers each time he's reborn.
In reference to eirdescania's comment, I've read in an interview with Cheryl Klein that her main job was continuity. There's just too much in these books for a handful of people to catch everything. Makes it fun for the rest of us to catch this stuff and discuss it.
|
|
|
Post by MWPP on Mar 2, 2009 21:58:41 GMT -5
Nothing like that is in the North American versions. DH talks about McGonagall sending out Parkinson first, and how Zabini pushes others out of the way to get out sooner, but there is no mention in the book about any Slytherins (except Draco, Crabbe, & Goyle) coming back.
Aaannnndddd.... I am such a good beta that I would have caught that.... and Ron doing his bed bounce... and Flint.... and... and... She shoulda had a better one than Neil or the company copy editor.
.
|
|
|
Post by eirdescania on Mar 3, 2009 15:47:52 GMT -5
As far as I know, from her interviews, she never discussed anything or let anyone see the MS while she was working on it. Then, when finished, she handed it to the publishers who immediately planned a release date. There was some quick checks at the publishers, but not much.
I've also seen interviews with some representative from her publishers saying they didn't know anything of how Jo planned the series to develop and end.
According to Jo herself, yes, several fans had asked.
|
|
|
Post by doriscrockford on Mar 6, 2009 6:13:54 GMT -5
I just re-read the end of DH to see if there was any mention of the Slytherins coming back, and the only two mentions after we seem them all leave the Great Hall are when we see Crabbe, Goyle and Malfoy in the Room of Hidden things; Voldemort says to Lucius: 'If your son is dead, Lucius, it is not my fault. He did not come and join me like the rest of the Slytherins...' (Chapter 32, The Elder Wand, pp.515-516 UK, italics mine) which seems to disagree with what Jo has later said, and finally a mention of Slughorn 'who was still wearing his emerald pyjamas' (Chapter 36, The Flaw in the Plan, p588 UK) on the front steps.
So I think she may have had them return in her head (or one of her many drafts) but not in the final book.
|
|
|
Post by birdg on Mar 7, 2009 2:14:17 GMT -5
That was Zacharias Smith (Hufflepuff), not Zabini.
I believe the mention to the Slytherins returning is made of page 734 of the US version when Harry sees Charlie and Slughorn enter the Great Hall with reinforcements, and thinks something like, "they seemed to have returned..."
Except the only one returning there was Slughorn unless we infer the "they" is the Slytherins that left.
|
|
|
Post by starsea on Mar 10, 2009 18:41:20 GMT -5
There's certainly no specific mention in the UK edition of Slytherins coming back, just the residents of Hogsmeade and the friends and relatives of anyone who was at Hogwarts. Jo mentioned it happened in an interview. She may have thought it out in her head and then assumed she'd written it down somewhere, when... she hadn't. I know I've done that before.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Mar 10, 2009 18:52:54 GMT -5
I don't think the Slytherins not coming back is a plot hole. I'm going to be ruthless and say that it makes sense given how the book and the entire series is writen for them not to have come back. I think she may have had regrets about her vision and then added that remark in an interview later. To be honest it doesn't matter one bit for the story as told what ever it means to fans.
The students aren't under an obligation to defend the school. Students from other houses also left the school. And McGonagall gives the offer as an opportunity not a duty.
As there is not one instance in the entire series of a Slytherin when a member of that group breaks ranks and helps Harry or any other non Slytherin student. (Escept Draco in 7th book.)
Can anyone think of any Slytherin among the students based on canon and not fanon who would fight for the school. (The Slytherin who is most complexly drawn and is shown with regrets is Draco. He tortures against his will and tries to protect the trio earlier, but he doesn't defend the school.)
All we have is a few blank slates and some nasty customers and students whose parents are on the other side.
|
|
|
Post by MWPP on Mar 10, 2009 19:47:20 GMT -5
Again, VEga, great observations!
While there is no way to substantiate anything, I wonder if JKR said that in a later interview because a lot of the fans play at sites which sort them into the houses and she was attempting to counter any kid feeling negative about themselves.
Back in the "halcion days" of fandom, lots of kids either became disgruntled when sorted into any House other than Gryffindor, or went off on a "wrong" tangent if the House was Slytherin. It took levels of maturity that many simply didn't not posess to see that sorting was just a way to deal with too many people on a site, essentially splitting the amount so all could play, rather than any indication of the individual's character.
JKR didn't write much that was redeeming about the Greenies (unless you count Snape, and possibly Sluggie), so she must have said this as damage control.
.
|
|
|
Post by pigwithhair on Mar 10, 2009 20:47:08 GMT -5
It's a valid question, VegaBlack, and no, I can't think of one.
The Slytherins I can recall in Harry's year were a pretty bad bunch, and I can't think of one postive thing any of them, save Draco in DH, did: Draco, Pansy, Millicent Bulstrode, Crabbe, Goyle, Zabini, Nott, Daphne Greengrass... nope.
As to JKR's comments in interviews, she has a history of changing her answers or contradicting herself in subsequent interviews.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Mar 10, 2009 21:33:25 GMT -5
In fanfiction Ive seen Daphne written as a sympathetic character. I've seen other even more namelss Slytherins written sympatheticly as well, but most of the ones we know are not sympathetic figures in canon at all.
|
|
|
Post by Mirabelle on Mar 10, 2009 23:21:51 GMT -5
I don't know if I'd come back to fight if I were a Slytherin. The chances of someone from another house assuming that I'm fighting for Voldemort are too high. What if you encounter another student who shoots first and then asks questions later? I really wish JKR had broken with Harry's POV during the camping trip and shown us what was happening at Hogwarts. It'd have been interesting to see what the dynamics between the houses were during that time and whether there was any advantage in being a Slytherin. They didn't seem to be welcome in the DA despite the "Dumbldore's Army Still Recruiting" graffitti. I always thought was more a message of defiance rather than the DA looking for members anyway.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Mar 11, 2009 9:04:46 GMT -5
Those are my thoughts exactly. This type of battle is like a medieval duel where there aren't uniforms or even battle flags. How did one side know who their friends were except by proximity and recognition. You see that in the scene where DRaco is hit by a Death Eater and tells him that he is on their side. There had to be friendly fire casualties on both sides. You had to fight with people who you knew you could trust and there had to be at least some shoot first ask questions later, perhaps with hexes that immobilized rather than killed.
I think the condition of a Slytherin in this situation had to be a huge burden. They risked dying for a cause for which they would get no credit from the side they were trying to help. In deed they risked attack by that side. Returning would be hard to do in that situation, especially after what Pansy publicly said. They were treated as a threat. This was not unreasonable of McGonagall. This is a battle to the death and it would be irresponsible to risk keeping untrustworthy people in the castle just to be nice or fair.
The DA isn't a football team or a social club where there is such a thing as fairness and unfairness in membership. It is an underground organization where trust is essential. If they had let in a Slytherin unsure if they could trust them that person could give away their secrets and put them at terrible risk. This is a situation where people were tortured. How many people would risk torture or the torture of their friends to be fair and open to someone that they didn't trust?
I didn't see the leadership -- Neville, Ginny or Luna trusting any of the Slytherins enough to let them join and know about the coins and their secrets. (the funny thing is that Draco did know. Its mentioned in book six. That is either a flint or a major character moment. Either Draco didn't tell or he told Snape and Snape kept the secret.)
A sympathetic Slythrin might give them information, or tr to protect them in some way -- not notice them when he was on patrol or ignore their activities, keep their secrets. That would be major help.
Did Slytherins other than Crabbe and Goyle torture people during detentions? Neville was punished for refusing to do so. Did Slytherins go along with it or risk punishment by refusing to hurt people? That would go along way to gaining trust. I suspect not. If any were publicly hurt for the DA I think we would have seen them in the room.
Which brings another issue. A Slytherin who showed sympathy for the DA would risk more suffering than anyone else. Carrow would view them as his people. He would punish betrayal severely. That is the DE pattern and the pattern of gangs etc. You don't leave easily. Slytherins were made members without asking them. Their situation was terrible.
Plus they lived with Crabbe, Goyle etc. The risk to theri coin being discovered or for after hours in house punishment is huge. (Don't say that they could have been girls or underage. They could get girls to search a girls room or give their suspicions to Alecto. Students willing to torture would be willing to search other peoples stuff.)
Any sympathetic Slytherins would be in a terrible position. Look at Draco at his own house.
|
|
|
Post by birdg on Mar 12, 2009 16:43:13 GMT -5
I think it would be up to each individual Slytherin what was at stake for them. Some of them were half-bloods like Millicent Bulstrode and Tracey Davis which meant their families may have been targeted. Some may have had siblings/friends/lovers who were in another house or even in the DA. Not all of them were Death Eaters or even likely to support the Death Eaters. And even those who were... we don't hear what happens to the senior Nott after OOTP and even during the DoM, Lucius was ready to abandon him once he was injured. Him dying and Theodore's mum already being dead could be reason enough for someone like him to go fight against Voldemort.
Vegablack, I agree with so much about what you say regarding the DA and Slytherins. It really wasn't something they could take a chance on. The whole Slytherin vs. the rest of the school dynamic began long before their 7th year (maybe it's been there since the beginning) and by the time DH rolled around, there was too much bad blood for anyone to extend the olive branch during a war.
Also, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I play Amycus Carrow in a Harry Potter RPG and it's really interesting to see how having two Death Eaters like the Carrows in the school could have added to the already tense atmosphere. Aside from being a catalyst to the members of Dumbledore's Army, in the game I tend to play on the divisions between the houses, choosing Slytherins to perform the Curses and members of the DA/Gryffindor to be the "test subjects". Canon could have unfolded similarly, only adding to the bitterness and distrust between the Houses.
|
|
|
Post by MWPP on Mar 12, 2009 21:04:10 GMT -5
The other important factor with the Greenies is that no one knew who was going to be the ultimate winner of the conflict.
Since they already had an "in" with The Dark Lord (who seemed quite strong, and a better bet to win than the disorganized, generally kind, and usually underestimated other side), they were just looking out for their own best interests. TDL would be a lot worse to have unhappy with you (well, except for the part where he was regularly thwarted by a kid and all the DEs still allowed him to be their leader... *eyeroll*).
So, if you are a Slytherin at Hogwarts, there is the very real problem of trust from every other person on both sides in the school, and the 'what if V wins?' aspects to consider before chosing a side.
They didn't return. JKR is messing with us.
.
|
|
|
Post by birdg on Mar 13, 2009 23:34:51 GMT -5
Well, unless you're secretly JKR there's no way of knowing that, now is there? All we have is what she said.
Quite frankly, while it is very possible none in Draco's year went back to fight, I think it would be unbelievable if none eligible Slytherin that ever passed through Hogwarts in the seven books went back to fight. We don't know how those who finished Hogwarts years or decades before the Battle felt about Voldy.
So, even though no Slytherin - ever, aside from Slughorn - turning up to fight would bolster my argument about the evils of the Sorting Hat I'm going to believe JKR on this one. She is, after all, the one who created the world.
|
|
|
Post by queenie on Mar 17, 2009 22:10:56 GMT -5
This will be long. Ahh, Plot Holes. There are a lot of things - people will probably hear me saying this a lot - that I didn't like about Book Seven. One of them is the Hallows themselves. Another is, like mentioned above, the fact that the last that we see of Ron is him "salivating over the Elder Wand." I thought that the Hallows themselves were too much like the Mirror of Erised for comfort.
Minor quibbles that I've never seen anyone else refer to: it doesn't feel right to me that Ron should perform a Confounding Spell on his Driver's Ed instructor so that he could pass the test. It's cheating, and even if he could use a spell that would let him know what's behind him anyway, he should be able to drive without it. What if he's in a situation where he really cannot use magic while driving (say, a bunch of Rose's Muggle friends are in the backseat?)
Even moreso, though, is the fact that it seems to reduce Muggles to being silly, out-of-the-know clods who can be tricked or fooled or bespelled, and it's all a joke. Gee, Ron, remember when you were fighting twenty years ago to prove that Muggles and Wizards are equal? No? Neither do I!
Also, what would have happened if the driver was driving himself home, and still under the influence of the spell?
Other minor minor quibble: talking about House divisions (and maybe this should move to the House thread) it just seems odd to me, unbalanced, that while the other relics of the other houses (Slytherin's locket, Hufflepuff's cup, and Ravenclaw's out-of-thin-air diadem) are destroyed, Gryffindor's sword remains inviolate. I understand it's not the other founders' fault that their relics made nice little Horcrux options, and that Gryffindor hid his so much better, but - it doesn't seem fair. I could take the destruction of all four of them as, like, a symbol that the old ways can only last so long, that the past has to be let go of, etc. etc., but Gryffindor stands above them all, more powerful.
Also, I would have at least liked someone - maybe Hermione - taking a moment to say something like, "What a shame, an authentic relic of the Founders, capable of so many wonderful things, twisted and used for evil when it could have done so much good; and now it must be destroyed." But nope. It was just a case of "Gotta catch 'em all!"
|
|
|
Post by kelleypen on Mar 17, 2009 22:28:21 GMT -5
Queenie, You make some really interesting points. I have to say, at least on destroying the Horcruxes, I agree with you. My inner sentimentalist, historian, archeologist, or whatever, kept saying . . . but, wait . . . that's a historical artifact . . . Rather like watching National Treasure and watching the Declaration of Independence being mishandled. That was hard for me. I also hadn't really thought about the significance of Gryffindor's artifact being the only one that was spared until you brought it up. I was angry and Severus and Remus were both killed. They marked the last of that group in the Potterverse (my generation). I didn't like it, but I understood that symbolically, the torch had been passed to the next generation and Harry's group were the grown-ups now. But it still left me frustrated. But Gryffindor's sword. You're right. It would have been more powerful if in killing the snake, it had also been destroyed. It would have symbolized an end to the house system and the old prejudices. Instead we see the 19 years later chapter and find the house system intact and unfortunately, healthy.
|
|
|
Post by MWPP on Mar 18, 2009 0:49:08 GMT -5
I had lots of problems with DH also. It really seemed as though she was trying to cram so much in to the space left that there either should have been more books, or that she should have left the whole sub-plot of the Hallows out. Granted, it is interesting, but not at the expense of tying up all the other loose ends well.
You make a lot of good points Queenie and KellyPen. I was flabberghasted that Voldie claims to be so in-the-know, and yet cavalierly wasted historical items as though they were the portkeys Dumbledore warned Harry about in HBP.
(The movie I have the most problems with in that vein - aside from National Treasure - is The Ninth Gate, where Johnny Depp's character sits there smoking all over five-hundred-to-a-thousand-year-old books, turning the pages with oily bare hands and flopping them around as though they were indestructable. I just wanted to grab his wrists and make him leave until he can learn to treat antiquities better... ditto when Indiana Jones breaks all manner of Egyptian relics.... *sigh*)
.
|
|