- This topic has 228 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
OneOfMany: Ook?
Librarian?
Ook!
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 job
Sorry, I don’t speak orangutan – my speciality is Luggage. ^_^
*gnashsnickersnakCHOMP*
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.
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?
So, OneOfMany, which character are you? Granny Weatherwax? Twoflowers? Archdeacon Ridcully? Dorfl?
I’ve always identified with Rincewind…
Definitely the Luggage (my alter ego being Horace the Cheese). ^_^
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…
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.
WHAT
42, you must read them RIGHT NOW or the Luggage will EAT you. *gnashes menacingly*
The Discworld series by Terry Pratchett.
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 🙂
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.
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?
YES HOW
makes no sense whatsoever
What exactly is Discworld about? It sounds confusing.
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…
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.
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.
im so confused.. i read all 7 harry potter books (and luv em!!) but i never heard of sum of these stuff..
’cause they ain’t from Harry Potter…
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.
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.)
this tottaly amazes me how everyone knows every single deet in harry potter..
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.)
ThePurpleOne – ??? ?? ????? ??!
Yekke2, the animals they transformed into had their personalities/ characteristics. I suppose they had to retain the same essences in order to change back.
My animagus would definitely be something that flies, I love birds and have always wanted to fly.
My animagus form would be the offspring of a Crumple-Horned Snortkack and a Blast-Ended Skrewt. ^_^
FTFY
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.”
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.
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.
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.)
Underage wizards also have “magical surges” without wands. These are just more controlled.
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.
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.