Splinching... ?
Welsh Dog
effects such that the trio don't even discuss it.
Ron loses a chunk of arm... and loses so much blood in a few seconds
he is ill for a week.
Surely the blood loss from losing a *leg* would be far greater than a
chunk of arm and would be a talking point for hours... or days
afterwards??
Wouldn't just the *risks* involved in splinching be discussed ad
nauseam by all the kids learning how to do it??
Seems 'odd' to me.
Welshdog
--
Don't just whinge - make your opinion count!
Australian Opinion
http://australianopinion.com.au
rc
> So a girl in school loses a leg and is put back together with no ill
> effects such that the trio don't even discuss it.
>
> Ron loses a chunk of arm... and loses so much blood in a few seconds
> he is ill for a week.
>
chapter 18, Birthday Surprises.
When the class on Appration started four professors were there. They
were Snape, McGonagall, Flitwick, Sprout and the instrictor, Wilkie
Twycross. When Susan Bones splinched her leg, all four wizards
immediately went to her rescue and put her back together.
When Ron was splinched, he only had Hermonie and a first aid kit. In
my opinion, Hermonie did a good job of fixing him.
RC
Toon
It's like going to a hospital vs using a big band-aid.
Meanwhile, some poor sap's walking along and is like OMG that's part
of somebody. Just a blob of bloody skin. Lying in the street. What
the hey?
Though it's interesting you can fail by leaving just an eyebrow
behind. How strict are these people?
Drusilla
It's like driving and hitting a trash can. You still hit it.
--
Colecciono Argentinos.
Welsh Dog
Exactly my point tho! Susan Bones lost a *leg* so even with all those
teachers etc there rushing to her aid surely she must have been
spouting blood like it was going out of fashion... yet none of the
other students felt it was worth a mention?
Hermione got to work on Ron as soon as they landed yet he still all
bar died from loss of blood... and no matter how fast the teachers got
to Susan to repair her, she would also have lost a lot of blood... far
more than Ron did!
What's more nobody mentioned how dangerous it might be if you were
splinched with no wizard/witch there to help put you together again!!
Lyle Francis Delp
Anyone remember the case recalled by Arthur Weasley when telling
the kids about splinching? It was a couple and apparently they left
half of themselves behind until the magical reversal squad showed up.
Based on Ron's experience, this couple really should be dead.
Though I love these books, this is a recurring problem....inconsistencies.
In OotP, apparating caused a loud crack. Later on, it was a faint pop.
--
Lyle Francis Delp
"Yeah, Lyle Francis Delp! Ya wanna make sumthin outtavit?"
Here in Minnesota!
snip
>
> Though I love these books, this is a recurring problem....inconsistencies.
> In OotP, apparating caused a loud crack. Later on, it was a faint pop.
>
> --
> Lyle Francis Delp
>
> "Yeah, Lyle Francis Delp! Ya wanna make sumthin outtavit?"
>
I always thought that the volume of the pop/crack was a sign of how good you
were in apparating... the better you were, the softer the sound.
Lyle Francis Delp
<neverwill...@hotmail.com> said:
Perhaps, but it was never clarified.
richard e white
If you look at how ron picked up his wound, it wasn't through normal
splinching. The witch at the mom who thought he was her husband grabbed him
and wanted him to stay. The part she was holding remained, most likely do to
her magic not his own mess up. It may cause a diffrent kind of wound then the
other two cases mentioned.
--
Richard The Blind Typer.
Lets hear it for talking computers.
Lets go for talking i-pods!
Here in Minnesota!
"Lyle Francis Delp" <lylefra...@live.com> wrote in message
news:2010062118120516807-lylefrancisdelp@livecom...
Your correct but it does solves the inconsistency
Toon
wrote:
This is more like coming very very close to it. And who looks for
wayward hair anyway?
Toon
wrote:
Is it possible the Splinching cauterized the wound? Susan just lucked
out in doing so compared to Ron.
And how many teachers does it take to reattach a leg?
rc
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think Richard is right. It isn't the splinching, it is how someone
is splinched!
Besides that Welshdog, these are family reading. I don't think JKR
wanted a description or discussion of blood spurting everywhere.
RC
rc
wrote:
> On 2010-06-20 22:02:44 -0400, Welsh Dog <welsh...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>
> Though I love these books, this is a recurring problem....inconsistencies.
> In OotP, apparating caused a loud crack. Later on, it was a faint pop.
>
> --
> Lyle Francis Delp
>
apparate with a crack.
RC
Lyle Francis Delp
The loud CRACK at the beginning of OotP was Mundugus Fletcher.
Yellow
lylefra...@live.com says...
>
> On 2010-06-22 16:05:39 -0400, rc <rclo...@aol.com> said:
>
> > On Jun 21, 8:28 am, Lyle Francis Delp <lylefrancisd...@live.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 2010-06-20 22:02:44 -0400, Welsh Dog <welsh...@gmail.com> said:
> >>
> >>>
> >> Though I love these books, this is a recurring problem....inconsistencies
> > .
> >> In OotP, apparating caused a loud crack. Later on, it was a faint pop.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Lyle Francis Delp
> >>
> > If I remember correctly, Wizards apparate with a pop, House Elves
> > apparate with a crack.
> >
> > RC
>
> The loud CRACK at the beginning of OotP was Mundugus Fletcher.
Perhaps JKR just mixed and matched her descriptions in an attempt to
make them varied and interesting.
Here in Minnesota!
I have the feeling that Mundugus was not a good wizard [which might explain
his life of petty crime]. I don't think there is any record of DD or LV
making a loud noise when they apperated. Anyway it's all guess work but I
think it was intentional by Rowling to have a faint pop at the beginning of
HBP to show how skill they were.
It reminds me when my friend and I rode out to the west coast on motorcycles
in the 70s.... our bikes were pretty quiet but it was a "fad" to have vey
loud bikes at the time [and cars]. The loud noise gave the impression of
power but we knew it just meant you had a cheap muffler or it was badly
tuned.
DaveD
I think we have to allow JKR a little dramatic licence here - these aren't
factual books, they're a story lol, so sometimes she has to make it a little
more interesting with details like that. It's not a huge plot point so I'm
happy to laugh and move on, and save my criticisms for the big
inconsistencies :)
DaveD
Welsh Dog
<dav...@DELETETHISBITgmx.co.uk> wrote:
>"Lyle Francis Delp" <lylefra...@live.com> wrote in message
>news:2010062111282416807-lylefrancisdelp@livecom...
>> On 2010-06-20 22:02:44 -0400, Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com> said:
>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:13:45 -0700 (PDT), rc <rclo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 19, 2:32 pm, Welsh Dog <welsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Though I love these books, this is a recurring problem....inconsistencies.
>> In OotP, apparating caused a loud crack. Later on, it was a faint pop.
>I think we have to allow JKR a little dramatic licence here - these aren't
>factual books, they're a story lol, so sometimes she has to make it a little
>more interesting with details like that. It's not a huge plot point so I'm
>happy to laugh and move on, and save my criticisms for the big
>inconsistencies :)
Give us a chance... I'm trying to keep discussion going!! :D
John VanSickle
> On 2010-06-22 16:05:39 -0400, rc <rclo...@aol.com> said:
>
>> On Jun 21, 8:28 am, Lyle Francis Delp <lylefrancisd...@live.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 2010-06-20 22:02:44 -0400, Welsh Dog <welsh...@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>> Though I love these books, this is a recurring
>>> problem....inconsistencies
>> .
>>> In OotP, apparating caused a loud crack. Later on, it was a faint pop.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lyle Francis Delp
>>>
>> If I remember correctly, Wizards apparate with a pop, House Elves
>> apparate with a crack.
>>
>> RC
>
> The loud CRACK at the beginning of OotP was Mundugus Fletcher.
That was Mundungus, smoking crack...
Regards,
John
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Toon
<evilsna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Lyle Francis Delp wrote:
>> On 2010-06-22 16:05:39 -0400, rc <rclo...@aol.com> said:
>>
>>> On Jun 21, 8:28 am, Lyle Francis Delp <lylefrancisd...@live.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 2010-06-20 22:02:44 -0400, Welsh Dog <welsh...@gmail.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Though I love these books, this is a recurring
>>>> problem....inconsistencies
>>> .
>>>> In OotP, apparating caused a loud crack. Later on, it was a faint pop.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Lyle Francis Delp
>>>>
>>> If I remember correctly, Wizards apparate with a pop, House Elves
>>> apparate with a crack.
>>>
>>> RC
>>
>> The loud CRACK at the beginning of OotP was Mundugus Fletcher.
>
>That was Mundungus, smoking crack...
Maybe it's skill level. The better you are, the quieter you are.
maybe Dung was trying to scare off bad guys. "Someone's here. We
can't attack Harry."
Lyle Francis Delp
Yeah, I'm sure that's what Dung was thinking.
rc
wrote:
> Lyle Francis Delp wrote:
> > On 2010-06-22 16:05:39 -0400, rc <rclov...@aol.com> said:
>
> >> On Jun 21, 8:28 am, Lyle Francis Delp <lylefrancisd...@live.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 2010-06-20 22:02:44 -0400, Welsh Dog <welsh...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >>> Though I love these books, this is a recurring
> >>> problem....inconsistencies
> >> .
> >>> In OotP, apparating caused a loud crack. Later on, it was a faint pop.
>
> >>> --
> >>> Lyle Francis Delp
>
> >> If I remember correctly, Wizards apparate with a pop, House Elves
> >> apparate with a crack.
>
> >> RC
>
> > The loud CRACK at the beginning of OotP was Mundugus Fletcher.
>
> That was Mundungus, smoking crack...
>
> Regards,
> John
>
RC
Troels Forchhammer
"DaveD" <dav...@DELETETHISBITgmx.co.uk> spoke these staves:
>
<snip>
> I think we have to allow JKR a little dramatic licence here -
> these aren't factual books, they're a story lol,
It happens to all authors, and, I suppose, generally the more often
for authors whose sub-creation differs the more from Primary Reality.
It even happens to Tolkien in _The Lord of the Rings_ (though he was
far more careful with that book than he was with _The Hobbit_).
Rowling, to be quite honest about it, isn't very good at avoiding
these inconsistencies, and while I fully understand the call for
'dramatic license' the fact is that these inconsistencies can be a
serious problem for many readers as they destroy the Secondary Belief
(to use Tolkien's word for it) -- the enchantment of the book ends,
the Art has failed and disbelief asserts itself; not because anything
in the book violates the laws of Primary Reality -- we're quite
willing to accept that -- but because it violates the rules that it
has itself set up for itself. I suppose the limit where art fails is
different for every reader -- and also the way that the
inconsistencies accumulate, but for us all there is a point where it
does become a fault in the art.
> so sometimes she has to make it a little more interesting with
> details like that.
Of course she had -- she was just not very careful at checking
whether these small details fit with what had be published
previously.
This may, come to think of it, be made worse by the idea of reading
Rowling as if it was some extremely condensed mystery story where
every small detail is believed to be a Chekhovian Gun. Of course this
isn't the case, but I suppose we've all seen people trying to build
some theory or other on these details. There were some books released
dealing with the 'Mysteries of Harry Potter' (_The Complete
Unofficial Guide to the Mysteries of Harry Potter_) that built on
this premise, and while I admit that it did point out a few
connections that I hadn't seen myself (about a handful, I'd say), the
majority of the contents of the books (there was an update published
for the _Half-blood Prince_) was, in my opinion, hunting shadows --
it was based on the very idea that every single word (or at least
every sentence) had some significance as a clue to the future plot.
This kind of reading would, I believe, tend to naturally over-
emphasize the small inconsistencies.
> It's not a huge plot point so I'm happy to laugh and move on, and
> save my criticisms for the big inconsistencies :)
Well, I certainly agree that the effort is better spent there ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.
- Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887.
richard e white
I agree skill is the reason for the diffrence. After all read over the bit
where the mom instrecter shows up to teach the sixth years. He is totaly quiet
as well as V and dd.
Drusilla
>
> Maybe it's skill level. The better you are, the quieter you are.
> maybe Dung was trying to scare off bad guys. "Someone's here. We
> can't attack Harry."
Ninjas make no sound!
--
Watching the World Cup for the football, not the damn hot players...
Barry Gray
Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
> It happens to all authors, and, I suppose, generally the more often
> for authors whose sub-creation differs the more from Primary Reality.
> It even happens to Tolkien in _The Lord of the Rings_ (though he was
> far more careful with that book than he was with _The Hobbit_).
> Rowling, to be quite honest about it, isn't very good at avoiding
> these inconsistencies, and while I fully understand the call for
> 'dramatic license' the fact is that these inconsistencies can be a
> serious problem for many readers as they destroy the Secondary Belief
> (to use Tolkien's word for it) -- the enchantment of the book ends,
> the Art has failed and disbelief asserts itself; not because anything
> in the book violates the laws of Primary Reality -- we're quite
> willing to accept that -- but because it violates the rules that it
> has itself set up for itself. I suppose the limit where art fails is
> different for every reader -- and also the way that the
> inconsistencies accumulate, but for us all there is a point where it
> does become a fault in the art.
Thanks for the wonderful way you have put this.
I love reading the Harry Potter books, and use magic (Accio teapot
etc) even when I am not. C S Lewis understood and wrote about the
gift that Tolkien had in a very similar way. He himself did not have
the gift: neither Narnia nor Harry Potter (nor The Hobbit) can ever
be, for me, anything other than a world which I can step into and out
of at will. But the world of The Lord of the Rings is not like that:
the power that causes you to suspend your disbelief (Lewis's words
iirc) permeates every page.
So thanks for putting the reason for this so well.
--
Barry Gray
http://www.barrygray.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
A child is a fire to be lit not a vessel to be filled
Troels Forchhammer
Barry Gray <barr...@blueyonder.co.uk> spoke these staves:
> Thanks for the wonderful way you have put this.
Thank you very much.
My ideas and wording owe a lot to Tolkien's description in the essay
'On Fairy-stories', where he writes:
Children are capable, of course, of literary belief,
when the story-maker's art is good enough to produce it.
That state of mind has been called “willing suspension of
disbelief.” But this does not seem to me a good
description of what happens. What really happens is that
the story-maker proves a successful “sub-creator.” He
makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside
it, what he relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of
that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it
were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is
broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then
out in the Primary World again, looking at the little
abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged,
by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief
must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and
looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of
disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a
subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-
believe, or when trying (more or less willingly) to find
what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us
failed.
So, credit where it is due, and most of it must go to Tolkien ;-)
> I love reading the Harry Potter books, and use magic (Accio teapot
> etc) even when I am not. C S Lewis understood and wrote about the
> gift that Tolkien had in a very similar way. He himself did not
> have the gift: neither Narnia nor Harry Potter (nor The Hobbit)
> can ever be, for me, anything other than a world which I can step
> into and out of at will.
I am afraid that I am not terribly well read in Lewis. I have read
the Narnia books and I quite agree that they fall short of the mark,
but I also know that Tolkien, despite the friendship between these
two authors, rather disliked the Narnia books and was sorry that they
should be what Lewis was best known for, so I suppose it is possible
that some of Lewis' other works are better (I've been considering
reading either his space trilogy or the _Screwtape Letters_).
> But the world of The Lord of the Rings is not like that: the power
> that causes you to suspend your disbelief (Lewis's words iirc)
> permeates every page.
One reason that I like Tolkien's description so very much is that he
expresses extremely well what I experience when reading. I feel that
I approach the book as a new world that I am willing to accept on its
own terms -- the author is free to make up the rules for his world,
and I am not in the least bothered by these rules being incompatible
with the rules that guide the Primary World (or which I believe guide
the Primary World). However, once the author starts breaking his own
rules, or starts contradicting himself in other ways, this builds up.
Some inconsistencies are so glaring that they create a plot-hole you
could fly the Death Star through and these forcibly yank me out of
this enchanted state of Secondary Belief, but the smaller
inconsistencies accumulate for me, so that I can also be brought out
of my enchantment by slow accumulation rather than being yanked out
of it.
I can only remember two instances where Rowling manages to yank me
out of the enchantment (both occurring during the final battle of
Hogwarts), but the small inconsistencies keep piling up so that, for
me, Secondary Belief is often more difficult to maintain. I feel this
to a greater extent in the later books, but I suppose that this is
primarily because the early books are mostly establishing the rules
and facts that are broken or contradicted by the later books (and
also because it becomes more difficult to maintain consistency even
within a single book the longer it is).
And as a personal oddity of mine I have found that I can alleviate
the effect of inconsistencies by investigating them fully. I once
made a study of the time line of the Harry Potter books, taking into
account everything every stated that would provide a clue to the
actual year of the events. Once I had proven clearly that there was
absolutely no way that even magic could make things consistent, I
could put it away and this particular inconsistency hasn't bothered
me since (not until she decided to firmly date the books, but that's
another story) ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Philosophers
must ultimately find
their true perfection
in knowing all
the follies of mankind
- by introspection.
- Piet Hein, /The Ultimate Wisdom/
Steve Morrison
> I am afraid that I am not terribly well read in Lewis. I have read
> the Narnia books and I quite agree that they fall short of the mark,
> but I also know that Tolkien, despite the friendship between these
> two authors, rather disliked the Narnia books and was sorry that they
> should be what Lewis was best known for, so I suppose it is possible
> that some of Lewis' other works are better (I've been considering
> reading either his space trilogy or the _Screwtape Letters_).
I prefer either of those to Narnia. But don't forget /Till We
Have Faces/; quite a few of us consider it his best work
of fiction.
Benjamin Esham
> In message <news:hvt77c$6mk$1...@news.eternal-september.org> "DaveD"
> <dav...@DELETETHISBITgmx.co.uk> spoke these staves:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I think we have to allow JKR a little dramatic licence here - these
> > aren't factual books, they're a story lol,
>
> It happens to all authors, and, I suppose, generally the more often for
> authors whose sub-creation differs the more from Primary Reality. It even
> happens to Tolkien in _The Lord of the Rings_ (though he was far more
> careful with that book than he was with _The Hobbit_). Rowling, to be
> quite honest about it, isn't very good at avoiding these inconsistencies,
> and while I fully understand the call for 'dramatic license' the fact is
> that these inconsistencies can be a serious problem for many readers as
> they destroy the Secondary Belief (to use Tolkien's word for it) -- the
> enchantment of the book ends, the Art has failed and disbelief asserts
> itself; not because anything in the book violates the laws of Primary
> Reality -- we're quite willing to accept that -- but because it violates
> the rules that it has itself set up for itself. I suppose the limit where
> art fails is different for every reader -- and also the way that the
> inconsistencies accumulate, but for us all there is a point where it does
> become a fault in the art.
Hi, Troels! I've just come back to this group after a couple of years off
and it's nice to see a familiar face :-)
Personally, I'm holding out for revised "second editions" of all seven books
which fix as many of these minor inconsistencies as is practical. Certainly
there are flaws in the books' plots which, if tugged at, would eventually
cause the entire storyline to unravel, but the smaller stuff (like the sound
apparition makes) could be patched over easily enough. Too bad my OCD falls
below money on the editors' priority scale ;-)
--
Benjamin D. Esham
bde...@gmail.com
I take full responsibility for my actions, except for the ones
that are someone else's fault.
Steve Morrison
>
> Hi, Troels! I've just come back to this group after a couple of years off
> and it's nice to see a familiar face :-)
It occurs to me that if you've been away, you might not have
seen the bad news about Green-eyed Chris? This was the post:
Troels Forchhammer
Benjamin Esham <bde...@gmail.com> spoke these staves:
>
<snip>
> Hi, Troels! I've just come back to this group after a couple of
> years off and it's nice to see a familiar face :-)
Hullo Benjamin -- good to see you back :-)
I'm afraid that I am not very active in AFH-P these days, but there
are other, more active, 'old-timers' around.
> Personally, I'm holding out for revised "second editions" of all
> seven books which fix as many of these minor inconsistencies as is
> practical.
Well, a second (or third in some cases) edition could, as you
suggest, probably fix most of the lesser inconsistencies, but there
are others that are so integral to the plot that I can't see how they
cay be repaired without rather drastic changes to the original book
-- at least as drastic as those Tolkien made to the Second Edition
_Hobbit_.
I'm sure that both Bloomsbury and Scholastic would _love_ to issue
revised editions (just as HarperCollins and Houghton Mifflin are
still issuing updated editions of _The Lord of the Rings_ <EG>)
Didn't Rowling say something at some point about revising? Or is that
just wishful thinking on my part? ;) On the other hand she might
wish to move on from Harry Potter. Has there been any news on what
she might want to do after the encyclopedic book?
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
The idea that time may vary from place to place is a
difficult one, but it is the idea Einstein used, and it is
correct - believe it or not.
- Richard Feynman
Rob Strom
wrote:
...
>
> Well, a second (or third in some cases) edition could, as you
> suggest, probably fix most of the lesser inconsistencies, but there
> are others that are so integral to the plot that I can't see how they
> cay be repaired without rather drastic changes to the original book
Can you elaborate on what you think these are?
There are some inconsistencies that just relate to JKR's unwillingness
to be precise about numbers, dates, and scientific facts
For instance, having Orion in the sky at midnight in June during
the Astronomy exam -- that starts you wondering whether Hogwarts
is on some other planet, or on earth in some other time where
the precession of the equinoxes has shifted
all the constellations around relative to the seasons, or whether
there's some plot significance to the constellations appearing to
wizards
somewhere other than where the Muggles would see them, but
then we just break through the fourth wall and think
most likely it's just JKR having her own "mice on Europa" moment.
A bigger inconsistency for me was when they made such a big
deal early on about the Unforgivable Curses, and how, er,
unforgivable they were. We expected Voldemort
to be using them, and Bellatrix too, but by book
six Draco tried to use Crucio on Harry, and by book
seven Harry uses Crucio on Amycus purely
out of revenge for his spitting on McGonagall, and
McGonagall barely rebukes him (he's also used
Imperio at Gringott's).
--
Rob Strom
Barry Gray
ups.com>
Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> There are some inconsistencies that just relate to JKR's unwillingness
> to be precise about numbers, dates, and scientific facts
> For instance, having Orion in the sky at midnight in June during
> the Astronomy exam -- that starts you wondering whether Hogwarts
> is on some other planet, or on earth in some other time where
> the precession of the equinoxes has shifted
> all the constellations around relative to the seasons, or whether
> there's some plot significance to the constellations appearing to
> wizards
> somewhere other than where the Muggles would see them, but
> then we just break through the fourth wall and think
> most likely it's just JKR having her own "mice on Europa" moment.
> --
> Rob Strom
An alternative explanation for this would be that, like most people
today, JKR's knowledge of astronomy is very poor (or alternatively she
considers that most of her readers will not notice or be bothered by
mistakes of this sort). Light and industrial pollution has meant that
today more that half the population of the world have never seen the
Dark Sky; most English schoolchildren would find it easier to name a
dinosaur from a picture than a constellation.
Benjamin Esham
> A bigger inconsistency for me was when they made such a big deal early on
> about the Unforgivable Curses, and how, er, unforgivable they were. We
> expected Voldemort to be using them, and Bellatrix too, but by book six
> Draco tried to use Crucio on Harry, and by book seven Harry uses Crucio on
> Amycus purely out of revenge for his spitting on McGonagall, and
> McGonagall barely rebukes him (he's also used Imperio at Gringott's).
In the latter case, there wasn’t really time for McGonagall to “punish”
Harry—Voldemort was pretty much on his way at that point, wasn’t he?
Besides, McGonagall getting all bent out of shape at Harry would just have
made their side appear weaker to Amycus. Infighting during an armed
conflict is something you want to avoid in general, much less let your enemy
see. And recall that McG herself uses the Imperius Curse on Amycus a couple
of pages later. By this point I think the “good guys” had taken enough of a
beating to adopt a “the ends justify the means” strategy—also exemplified in
Harry’s use of the Imperius in Gringotts. I feel like these fall under the
umbrella of “we do what we have to in wartime.” Not a sentiment I agree
with, necessarily, but an understandable one.
(Returning to the topic of continuity and other issues in the books…) More
bothersome to me is some of the information that is revealed in the later
books that should have been there from the start. Specifically, I’m
thinking of the identification of people called “Death Eaters” as
Voldemort’s henchmen. Harry was surprised at the beginning of GoF when
someone referred to “Death Eaters”. Shouldn’t he have known by then what
V’s followers were called? In fact, thinking back, I don’t recall any
mention that Voldemort *had* followers before the explanation of Sirius’s
backstory in PoA, and even then it was presented as if it was just the two
of them against the entire Wizarding World. These are essential points, and
even if JKR hadn’t worked out the details before writing GoF they should be
brought up earlier if the books are re-edited.
Another example the identity of the Muggle Studies professor: killing
Charity Burbage would have been rather more shocking had we known who she
was prior to that chapter.
--
Benjamin D. Esham | bde...@gmail.com
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori. — Wilfred Owen
Edward McArdle
<barr...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
None of you has realised that this is Not Our Earth?
--
Edward McArdle
Toon
Then who's this Harry Potter I have tea with every Sunday?
Welsh Dog
I saw that as indicative of the gradual collapse of civilized
behaviour under the influence of Voldemort, i.e. a result of what can
happen when the rule of law has been usurped illegally.
Welsh Dog
><barr...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <7793ce6c-db51-4745...@d37g2000yqm.googlegro
>>ups.com>
>> Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
<snip>
>None of you has realised that this is Not Our Earth?
When anyone asks questions about inconsistencies etc you just smile
and say "It's magic.... "
Draco Malfoy
> So a girl in school loses a leg and is put back together with no ill
> effects such that the trio don't even discuss it.
>
> Ron loses a chunk of arm... and loses so much blood in a few seconds
> he is ill for a week.
>
> Surely the blood loss from losing a *leg* would be far greater than a
> chunk of arm and would be a talking point for hours... or days
> afterwards??
>
> Wouldn't just the *risks* involved in splinching be discussed ad
> nauseam by all the kids learning how to do it??
>
> Seems 'odd' to me.
>
> Welshdog
Uh, it's *fantasy*, duh.
--
The fans rightly adore me !
https://twitter.com/TomFelton
Drusilla
This is fantasy and we've discussed fantasy for years around here, talk
about the movies, books, actors, jkr. All in good manner. If you don't
care about the books and only want to show us how hot is Emma or stuff
like that, I highly recommend tumblr.
--
Dru
Draco Malfoy
I highly recommend you stay Fucked Off.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/skaran/23299720/ Platform 9 3/4 today
http://www.evilwizardrock.com/
http://www.myspace.com/dracoandthemalfoysusa
John Szalay
news:7ldq161plptt7v4mv...@4ax.com:
> So a girl in school loses a leg and is put back together with no ill
> effects such that the trio don't even discuss it.
>
> Ron loses a chunk of arm... and loses so much blood in a few seconds
> he is ill for a week.
>
> Surely the blood loss from losing a *leg* would be far greater than a
> chunk of arm and would be a talking point for hours... or days
> afterwards??
>
> Wouldn't just the *risks* involved in splinching be discussed ad
> nauseam by all the kids learning how to do it??
>
> Seems 'odd' to me.
>
> Welshdog
Remember all the major teachers were in attendence during this session
and acted quickly to limit the damage. and probably to modify the memories
of anyone that "got upset" by the incident"
t'was only HP & HG around when Ron was injuried.