February 6, 2013 3:29 pm at 3:29 pm #1115479
OneOfMany: Ook?February 6, 2013 4:32 pm at 4:32 pm #1115480
Librarian?February 6, 2013 5:17 pm at 5:17 pm #1115481
Ook!February 6, 2013 5:49 pm at 5:49 pm #1115482
Quirel was the DADA teacher beforehand. However, the job was only cursed starting Harry’s first year at Hogwarts, which is when Voldemort tried to get the jobFebruary 6, 2013 6:14 pm at 6:14 pm #1115483
Sorry, I don’t speak orangutan – my speciality is Luggage. ^_^
*gnashsnickersnakCHOMP*February 6, 2013 7:09 pm at 7:09 pm #1115484
real israeli – not sure about that, book 6 implies that the job was cursed as soon as Voldemort left Dumbledore’s office after applying for the job, which was soon after he himself left school.February 6, 2013 7:21 pm at 7:21 pm #1115485
real israeli: Be realistic, now – how could he have possibly applied for the job as himself when he was all defeated and formless and stuff?February 6, 2013 8:53 pm at 8:53 pm #1115486
So, OneOfMany, which character are you? Granny Weatherwax? Twoflowers? Archdeacon Ridcully? Dorfl?February 6, 2013 8:58 pm at 8:58 pm #1115487
I’ve always identified with Rincewind…February 6, 2013 9:02 pm at 9:02 pm #1115488
Definitely the Luggage (my alter ego being Horace the Cheese). ^_^February 6, 2013 9:12 pm at 9:12 pm #1115489
I have Detritus’ brains, Cheery’s height, Vimes’ sobriety, Nobby’s looks, Colon’s tact and Igor’s social skills. Basically, I’m everything good about the Watch…February 6, 2013 9:26 pm at 9:26 pm #1115490
just my hapence:
42 – he is introduced to Harry in the Leaky Cauldron as the current DADA teacher and Fred and George clearly refer to him as having taught the subject the previous year. Mareh mokom will be provided when I can get hold of a copy.
From the book:
A pale young man made his way forward, very nervously. One of his eyes was twitching.
“Professor Quirrell!” said Hagrid. “Harry, Professor Quirrell will be one of your teachers at Hogwarts.”
“P-P-Potter,” stammered Professor Quirrell, grasping Harry’s hand,
“c-can’t t-tell you how p- pleased I am to meet you.”
“What sort of magic do you teach, Professor Quirrell?”
“D-Defense Against the D-D-Dark Arts,” muttered Professor Quirrell, as though he’d rather not think about it.
“Even Professor Quirrell was tremblin’ ter meet yeh — mind you, he’s usually tremblin’.”
“Is he always that nervous?”
“Oh, yeah. Poor bloke. Brilliant mind. He was fine while he was
studyin’ outta books but then he took a year off ter get some firsthand experience…. […] never been the same since.
Scared of the students, scared of his own subject now”
It is mashma from Hagrid that he had taught DADA previously and then took off a year.Fred and George are 2 years ahead of Harry so they might have had him 2 years earlier before he took off a year. So by skipping a year he never really broke the spell – each DADA teacher only lasted a year, he happened to have come back later for a 2nd year and that one only lasted one year as well. It is dochek and I think JKR even acknowledged this in an interview at some point.February 6, 2013 9:27 pm at 9:27 pm #1115491
JKR actually answers this on Pottermore:
Quirrell originally taught Muggle Studies and then took a year off to learn about the Dark Arts and meets Voldemort. He gets taken over by Voldie only after the break-in at Gringotts which would explain why he was able to shake Harry’s hand without pain.February 6, 2013 9:38 pm at 9:38 pm #1115494
I think I’d be Offler due to my temper. But I’m a little naive, like Twoflowers offset by a bit of Vimes’s cynicism. I also have Rincewinds memory for important things, and Dorfls feet of clay (not to mention his brethren, Klutz, Shmatteh, Meshuggah and Aghammarad).
But I think out of all of them I would have to go with Not-As-Big-As-Big-Jock-But-Bigger-Than-Medium-Jock Jock.February 6, 2013 9:55 pm at 9:55 pm #1115495
What is going on here? Somebody hijacked my thread with a discussion about a book I never heard of!February 6, 2013 9:58 pm at 9:58 pm #1115496
42, you must read them RIGHT NOW or the Luggage will EAT you. *gnashes menacingly*February 7, 2013 1:22 am at 1:22 am #1115498
What books are you talking about?February 7, 2013 1:35 am at 1:35 am #1115499
The Discworld series by Terry Pratchett.February 7, 2013 2:10 am at 2:10 am #1115500
I think the whole of book 7 in Harry Potter is terrible compared to the previous books. I particularly disliked the epilogue.
This is Yeshiva World, please no ‘shipping discussions 🙂February 7, 2013 11:37 am at 11:37 am #1115501
42 – Ha gufah ra’aya, the conversation you quoted takes place before the school year started and Hagrid is quoted as saying that Quirrell is “scared of his own subject”, implying that he already teaches DADA, the subject he then teaches the following school year (i.e. for a second consecutive year) and after the Sorting Ceremony Percy tells Harry that Snape has “been after Quirrell’s job for years”, again implying that Quirrell taught the subject previously. Quirrell is not welcomed back, implying that the year out was not the previous one nor is it mentioned that (unlike when Snape changes subject in Book 6) he will now be teaching a different subject than before. His turban (which he got on the year out) is something that the pupils are used to already, as Fred and George show when they tell Harry (on the second day of term) that some think he keeps garlic underneath to ward of vampires (in other words he wore the turban the previous year and therefore the year out was at least two previous). For all the above reasons, and others besides, (whatever JKR may try and retroactively claim) I find the Quirrell conundrum implacable.February 7, 2013 2:00 pm at 2:00 pm #1115502
42: How is it that you know all about towels, hitchhikers, improbability, tea and the Great Question, but you’ve never heard of what is essentially the fantasy version of that, except six times the size?February 7, 2013 2:18 pm at 2:18 pm #1115503
makes no sense whatsoeverFebruary 8, 2013 3:12 am at 3:12 am #1115504
Just my happence wrote:
42 – Ha gufah ra’aya, the conversation you quoted takes place before the school year started and Hagrid is quoted as saying that Quirrell is “scared of his own subject”, implying that he already teaches DADA, the subject he then teaches the following school year (i.e. for a second consecutive year)
I agree it is dochek. JKR seems to have overlooked this and then only explained it away after the fact. But lemaysah you can say that when Hagrid said “scared of his own subject” he was referring to the subject he was planning to teach the coming September and not the Muggle Studies subject he had taught before his year off.
and after the Sorting Ceremony Percy tells Harry that Snape has “been after Quirrell’s job for years”, again implying that Quirrell taught the subject previously.
Again, bidochek you can say he was referring to the job that Quirrel was starting that day and that the “for years” was referring to the job itself and not that Quirrel actually taught the job for years.
Quirrell is not welcomed back, implying that the year out was not the previous one nor is it mentioned that (unlike when Snape changes subject in Book 6) he will now be teaching a different subject than before.
This is an interesting point. Perhaps there was an announcement of the job change but it wasn’t recorded because it wouldn’t mean anything to Harry as he doesn’t take Muggle Studies in his first year.
His turban (which he got on the year out) is something that the pupils are used to already, as Fred and George show when they tell Harry (on the second day of term) that some think he keeps garlic underneath to ward of vampires (in other words he wore the turban the previous year and therefore the year out was at least two previous).
This I have to disagree with. Harry actually notices the turban at the opening feast and it is mashma that he did not wear it previously. Any reasons that fred and George give do not imply that they were used to it. Adaraba, it shows that he had davka been gone the previous year and met a vampire.
For all the above reasons, and others besides, (whatever JKR may try and retroactively claim) I find the Quirrell conundrum implacable.
Of course the obvious answer is that JKR is not Hashem and Harry potter is not the Torah so not everything in the first book will shtim with the story later on. (Ahhh, kfira!!!). But it is still fun to try to come up with terutzim to make it fit. ^_^February 8, 2013 3:16 am at 3:16 am #1115505
in answer to yserbius, I actually only read Hitchhikers Guide once a long time ago and have never really chazered it as it is not such an appropriate book for B’nei Torah. But I still like using some of the concepts from there such as 42. HP on the other hand I am a baki in. Though if I have time some day perhaps I will read Discworld. Is it appropriate for Bnai Torah?February 8, 2013 4:44 am at 4:44 am #1115506
What exactly is Discworld about? It sounds confusing.February 8, 2013 5:50 am at 5:50 am #1115507
torah613: Well, it’s 39 books long, so you can’t really expect it to have a single unifying plot…it’s basically a fantasy series with all the regular fantasy elements – witches, wizards (they are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS in this universe) trolls, etc., and also a super-epic satire of lots of stuff (like, everything from modern-day life to Shakespeare ^_^). The plot is pretty much structured as a number of different interconnecting subplots centered around several groups of main characters.
Mod-42: It is written in a similar style to the Guide, but I would definitely say that it is a lot cleaner. The style is a lot less acerbic (I guess Pratchett isn’t an atheist like Douglas…)
But there are also a bunch of “gods”…not sure how you feel about that…February 10, 2013 4:19 am at 4:19 am #1115508
OneOfMany and 42: A lot cleaner than Hitchikers Guide. Except that one book with that one song about a hedgehog. And there is a metric ton of innuendo, especially the witches and Wee Free Men series.
There’s also quite a bit of apikorsos in there, but it’s presented in a fantasy oifen. (One book, for instance, deals with the god of evolution who happens to be an Atheist.) And, as I always say, if you think that reading a book is going to change you beliefs in HaKadhosh Baruch Hu, you have many more problems to worry about.
All in all the books are hilariously funny.February 10, 2013 4:43 am at 4:43 am #1115509
Doesn’t sound like my kind of book, but if I find it in a friend’s house, I will definitely read it. Thanks for the rec.February 10, 2013 6:27 am at 6:27 am #1115510
im so confused.. i read all 7 harry potter books (and luv em!!) but i never heard of sum of these stuff..February 10, 2013 9:40 am at 9:40 am #1115511
’cause they ain’t from Harry Potter…February 10, 2013 3:39 pm at 3:39 pm #1115512
In answer to yekke2’s question about the secret-keeper, until Book 7 we were never told what happens when a secret keeper dies. It seems that as long as the secret keeper is alive, he can tell the secret to many people but they cannot in turn tell it to someone else. But, once he dies, they now have the power to tell someone else and not only that, but the “someone else” has the power to tell. In other words, the charm is significantly weakened.February 10, 2013 11:19 pm at 11:19 pm #1115513
It doesn’t say so in the books – it says that everybody who DUMBLEDORE DIVULGED IT TO becomes a secret keeper, simply DILUTING the strength by the amount of people who know it now, who can all divulge it.February 11, 2013 12:11 am at 12:11 am #1115514
True, that is what it says explicitly in the books but it is also mashma that nobody really knows what happend to the charm after the secretikeeper dies. Hermione was acting out of caution, she wasn’t sure what the effect of her bringing Yaxley into the house was. For that matter, what would happen before Dumbledore had died if one of them would have apparated into the house with somebody else who did not know the secret holding on? What if the secret-keeper does that? We know that he can divulge the secret through writing (the note Harry read) but does apparating have the smae effect? Nobody seems to know for sure so therefore they acted with caution assuming the worst.February 11, 2013 12:16 am at 12:16 am #1115515
One of my friends suggested that maybe if Yaxley was doing side-by-side apparition, they would be in the house even if they wouldn’t know where they were, but if Harry would appear there, they would see him.
(Voldemort could look through the window because the secret being hidden was where the Potters were hiding. Here, it is just the location of Headquarters that is being hidden, so they could get in, and simply wait for anybody to come.)March 1, 2013 9:23 pm at 9:23 pm #1115516
Page 106 of Prisoner of Azkaban:
“. . . and there’s a thing here,” [Ron] turned the [teacup] again, “that looks like a hippo . . . no, a sheep . . .”
Professor Trelawney whirled around as Harry let out a snort of laughter.March 1, 2013 9:28 pm at 9:28 pm #1115517
this tottaly amazes me how everyone knows every single deet in harry potter..March 2, 2013 11:15 pm at 11:15 pm #1115518
I would definitely be a phoenix – while in phoenix form, I would never die; I would have healing powers and I would be able to sing wonderfully. Besides for being able to fly with large weights. (Supposing it is possible to give oneself powers of another creature when turning into an animagus – although one could suggest that transfiguration by a human will only externally change the shape and size but not the actual ‘human’ creation. I am not sure)
BTW – why, once one is an animagus, can one not transform into more than one different creature? Sirius was always the same dog, Pettigrew was always the same rat – why does this necessarily need to be so? If one is just performing complex transfiguration, why can one not customize it each time?
And if Moody can turn Malfoy into a ferret, why can he not transform himself? (Although maybe Animagus, which is **somehow** performed without a wand (?) is harder.)March 2, 2013 11:18 pm at 11:18 pm #1115519
ThePurpleOne – ??? ?? ????? ??!March 3, 2013 2:05 am at 2:05 am #1115520
Yekke2, the animals they transformed into had their personalities/ characteristics. I suppose they had to retain the same essences in order to change back.March 3, 2013 2:06 am at 2:06 am #1115521
My animagus would definitely be something that flies, I love birds and have always wanted to fly.March 3, 2013 2:12 am at 2:12 am #1115522
My animagus form would be the offspring of a Crumple-Horned Snortkack and a Blast-Ended Skrewt. ^_^
FTFYMarch 3, 2013 2:22 am at 2:22 am #1115523
Speaking of Harry Potter drashos…I saw this somewhere else on the interwebz, thought it was interesting:
There was a part of the prophecy that could have gone either way: “either must die at the hand of the other / for neither can live while the other survives.” In the book it means that in the end, one of them will have to kill the other.
What if it meant something else instead?
What if it meant the only way either of them could die would be at the hand of the other?
“either must die at the hand of the other”
Meaning, the one who didn’t die had no other means of achieving death. This means that by killing Voldemort, Harry sacrifices his death. It’s been made clear to us that death is the only way he’ll ever be with his loved ones. Dying isn’t such a bad sacrifice to make. But sacrificing his own death and living forever would be the ultimate sacrifice for Harry. By killing Voldemort, Harry would become immortal, never seeing his family or friends in death.
Harry Potter would forever be “The Boy Who Lived.”March 3, 2013 2:51 am at 2:51 am #1115524
He kinda did die already – in the forest. So each did die at the hand of the other.March 3, 2013 3:06 am at 3:06 am #1115525
Yeah, yeah, heard that cop-out tripe already. 😛 But the fact of the matter is he didn’t end up dying and Voldemort did, so the interpretation still stands.March 3, 2013 3:34 am at 3:34 am #1115526
Oom, I like. 🙂
And 42, he did not. He made the choice not too. He was only on the threshold of death. There’s a difference.March 3, 2013 7:17 am at 7:17 am #1115527
So he is immortal, maybe JKR should now write a book about 200 years in the future where Harry goes into the forest and retrieves the stone in order to be with his family and friends who are all gone. Eventually he goes crazy and becomes the most evil Dark Lord ever – with the help of the shadow of Tom Riddle which comes out of the stone to help him.March 3, 2013 11:33 pm at 11:33 pm #1115528
When an animagus transforms, what happens to his clothes?
(It is mashma that part of the transformation transforms the clothes into the animal; see by McGonagall she has the glasses around her eyes, as does Rita Skeeter.)
How does the transformation work without a wand? Barely any magic at all can take place without a wand. (The child wizard magic is similar (eg Lily making the flower shrivel and grow again). Voldemort can perform Legilimency without a wand, as can Snape and Dumbledore. Quirrel in Book 1 “snaps his fingers” to bind up Harry, without any mention of a wand.)March 4, 2013 12:18 am at 12:18 am #1115529
Underage wizards also have “magical surges” without wands. These are just more controlled.March 4, 2013 3:05 am at 3:05 am #1115530
Well they say its really complex to become an Animagus and very few underage wizards achieve it. Maybe part of the complexity is doing the magic without a wand.March 4, 2013 11:04 am at 11:04 am #1115531
If it is a perfect invisibility cloak, why can Moody’s eye see through it?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.