|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 12:17 pm
I don't know about that. A couple were aurors and they had been authorized to use the Kadava curse against death eaters. It looked as though that's what Molly used on Bellatrix all though it doesn't really say exactly what spell she used, only that it shot under Bella's arm and hit her in the chest and she crumpled to the floor.(paraphrased)
There is also the cute spell that Mogonagal used against Snape with Daggers.
My idea would be to strike as much fear in the death eaters as they were trying to do to everyone else. Perhaps they could be nice ferrets instead?
Jenny
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 1:05 pm
Human-to-animal transfiguration? We know it's possible, so yeah, that could've worked! Death eaters in, walking pork chops out.
I love it!
I don't know that it was the killing curse Molly used. I've read one theory that it was a stunner or some such spell, and that the House Elves of Hogwarts did the rest...a fitting end for a witch that considers elves beneath her notice and uses their heads as wall ornaments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:08 pm
It could have been a powerful jinx or curse that hit them in the chest... It was their heart so it probably stopped it!
The ferret thing brings me to this question: WTF was up with the peacock? Was that Lucious?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 4:55 pm
Nah. I think that it was Lucius showing off his wealth by importing rare albino peacocks. A little detail of the estate to show us just how well-to-do and self-important the Malfoys are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:10 pm
Alutian Human-to-animal transfiguration? We know it's possible, so yeah, that could've worked! Death eaters in, walking pork chops out.
I love it!
I don't know that it was the killing curse Molly used. I've read one theory that it was a stunner or some such spell, and that the House Elves of Hogwarts did the rest...a fitting end for a witch that considers elves beneath her notice and uses their heads as wall ornaments. I like that theory, that the house elves did the rest. It also seems fitting since Belatrix did end up killing Dobby. So sad, so sad. But the theory does make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 7:39 pm
One more thing!
The whole wand ruler thing... so now all of a sudden if you disarm someone, their wand wants you!
Where was all this when people were disarming people in the previous books? I don't know... to me that just didn't fit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:21 am
IceeWitch One more thing! The whole wand ruler thing... so now all of a sudden if you disarm someone, their wand wants you! Where was all this when people were disarming people in the previous books? I don't know... to me that just didn't fit
Anyone else want to try explaining this one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:55 am
Perhaps you have to sort of claim the wand, either by using it or by taking it permanantly after the disarming. If the original owner regains it before the disarmer can take it away, the wand stays with the original, perhaps. Therefore, when the DA practiced disarming they weren't playing 'musical wands', and when Snape disarmed Lockhart the idiot's wand didn't change allegience to the greaseball. And when Malfoy disarmed Dumbledore, while the Elder wand was, perhaps, not claimed by Malfoy, it was also not re-taken by its master, Dumbledore. I expect once a master is dead it no longer considers that person its master...
I expect that there's a little more to it than just disarming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:25 am
@Unbrokenlover: you have a nice siiggy!
I hate it when things happen and they're never explained. The way JK made it seem like is if you disarm someone...their wand chooses you. Or if you steal (in the case of Grindelwald and that Gregorovitch guy) the wand it's yours too.
Things like that have been happening throughout the series and now all of a sudden the wand changes allegiance. I don't think JK should have added that part in the books if she didn't use it earlier in the series where it would have made more sense.. All that wand stuff made the book a lot more confusing.
I've just finished re-reading the book and I see that I'm more confused as ever... Except I understand how Fred died now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:44 am
IceeWitch @Unbrokenlover: you have a nice siiggy! I hate it when things happen and they're never explained. The way JK made it seem like is if you disarm someone...their wand chooses you. Or if you steal (in the case of Grindelwald and that Gregorovitch guy) the wand it's yours too. Things like that have been happening throughout the series and now all of a sudden the wand changes allegiance. I don't think JK should have added that part in the books if she didn't use it earlier in the series where it would have made more sense.. All that wand stuff made the book a lot more confusing. I've just finished re-reading the book and I see that I'm more confused as ever... Except I understand how Fred died now. now let me try to go in order. 1) Thank you IceeWitch 2) The only reason I cant think of to make JKR to do that in the last book is because that's the only way Harry could have survived the killing curse. 3) She shouldn't have messed with the twins. gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 12:13 am
IceeWitch wrote: Quote: I hate it when things happen and they're never explained. The way JK made it seem like is if you disarm someone...their wand chooses you. Or if you steal (in the case of Grindelwald and that Gregorovitch guy) the wand it's yours too. Things like that have been happening throughout the series and now all of a sudden the wand changes allegiance. I don't think JK should have added that part in the books if she didn't use it earlier in the series where it would have made more sense.. All that wand stuff made the book a lot more confusing. I've just finished re-reading the book and I see that I'm more confused as ever... Except I understand how Fred died now. If you take posession of a wand unwillingly from another witch/wizard or in the case of the Elder Wand the previous master died before he could re-claim his wand so its allegiance went the last person to remove it from him unwillingly which was Draco. If when the DA were disarming they had taken each other's wands before the owner then the wand's allegiance would go to them. Alutian is right you'd have to claim the wand Alutian wrote: Quote: I don't know that it was the killing curse Molly used. I've read one theory that it was a stunner or some such spell, and that the House Elves of Hogwarts did the rest...a fitting end for a witch that considers elves beneath her notice and uses their heads as wall ornaments. I didn't seen anything to indicate that the house elves finished off Bellatrix. My book is on loan to a friend so I can't look it up right now, but after reading it several times (since it was one of my fav parts) Molly killed her with whatever spell she used. I took Harry's likening it to Sirius to indicate that she was about to die just as he had, with the little laugh on still on his lips. Jenny
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:06 pm
If you read back it in fact WAS explained in earlier books because so-in-so's borrowed wand didn't work for someone else properly. We just never had it explained to us. Just like the thestrals before OoTP, we just thought the carriages were enchanted to pull themselves because that's what it looked like. It was just overlooked until something happened or it was explained.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:47 pm
Kaelyn_giselle If you read back it in fact WAS explained in earlier books because so-in-so's borrowed wand didn't work for someone else properly. We just never had it explained to us. Just like the thestrals before OoTP, we just thought the carriages were enchanted to pull themselves because that's what it looked like. It was just overlooked until something happened or it was explained. I'm confused... this is the first time I ever heard of a wand choosing a new master.. Alutian's logic does make sense with the claiming of the wand... but the whole thing is still confusing. I think it was something that was thought of only for the 7th book and it didn't fit the entire series
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:52 pm
I felt that most of the stuff in teh last book just sprung up out of nowhere, they never mentioned anything with the hallows before not even a tiny little hint, And i don't get the elder wand thing well either, Deathly Hallows just made more questions and never answered those from the last book, The epilogue SUCKED, and i was waiting for a confrontation between Snape and Harry, and why did Fred have to die? gonk I don't understand how Harry somehow got reborned and what happened to little teddy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:24 pm
silverstorm13 I felt that most of the stuff in teh last book just sprung up out of nowhere, they never mentioned anything with the hallows before not even a tiny little hint, And i don't get the elder wand thing well either, Deathly Hallows just made more questions and never answered those from the last book, The epilogue SUCKED, and i was waiting for a confrontation between Snape and Harry, and why did Fred have to die? gonk I don't understand how Harry somehow got reborned and what happened to little teddy?
No, the Hallows were never mentioned before, and yes, more questions were created. But life is like that. You never really find out some things. They remain a mystery, something for you to guess at what happened but never really know.
I didn't mind the epilogue at all. In fact, I quite liked it. It wrapped up a few little things, showing us that all of these characters are all right. They've coped, life has moved on. I love knowing that the characters' lives keep on going even after the 'final battle', the last bit of true action and conflict in the book. So your statement, just like mine, is an opinion. Not a fact. Please do not state it as such, and I will also try to present my opinions as what they are: opinions.
A confrontation between Snape and Harry? Why? What purpose would it serve? Snape was on Harry's side the entire time (though we weren't aware of it) so a confrontation would be useless and would not help the plot along at all. Either Snape would dodge Harry and run away again, or Harry would hurt Snape badly, something that really wouldn't be good for Harry. Snape would never be able to put his reasons into words, and he's too proud to show Harry his memories while he has hope of living. We had a sort of emotional confrontation, both in the Shack and in Snape's memories instead of a physical one.
Fred was a casualty of war. I don't know why Rowling chose that particular character--perhaps to illustrate that, in battle, no one is invincible. No one really knows why.
Harry wasn't reborn. He never really dies. Dumbledore explains it all in clear terms in the chapter entitled "King's Cross". Quite simply, it works this way:
When Voldemort was stopped that Halloween night, long ago, a bit of his tattered and unstable soul tore off and attatched itself to little Harry, forming that unique connection and making Harry an accidental, unkown horcrux.
When Voldemort was reborn in that ritual, he took some of Harry's blood, thus tying Lily's protection over Harry (and by extent, Harry's own life) to earth.
Harry willingly gave up his life. Voldemort's killing curse hit Harry, but he only killed his own soul bit. Harry's blood and Lily's protection in Voldemort's living body gave Harry the option of returning, alive and non-ghostly. Despite the fact that Harry's death wasn't exactly permanant, his willing sacrifice cast a protection over all of the remaining fighters at Hogwarts. Voldemort's spells didn't hold them long; Neville was able to shrug off a full Body-bind of his.
Teddy's fine. We can probably assume he was raised by his grandmother, Andromeda Tonks, and has dinner at the Potters' several times each week. He was at Platform nine and three quarters in the epilogue, a nineteen year old teenager happily seeing off (aka: snogging) Victoire Weasley, the eldest daughter of Bill and Fleur. Rowling specifically included this in the epilogue to show that Teddy's doing just fine and is happy.
So, is that everything?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
