Harry Potters Birthday?
Dietrich Oberg
the year of birth of Harry Potter?"
Any hint, where I could find this 'essential' Information?
Thanx in advance.
D. Oberg - germany
Jeff Thomas
news:aqrdfb$kra$06$1...@news.t-online.com:
From the books you must know that the day of birth is the 31st of July so
I assume you mean the year.
In book two Nearly Headless Nick invites Harry, Ron, and Hermione to his
500th Deathday celebration. He states that he died on the 31st of Oct
1492. Hence 500 years later is 31 Oct 1992. Since Harry turned twelve that
summer before second year started he must have been born in 1980.
The only real problem with that date is that in the first book Nick says
he hasn't tasted food for 400 years not 500.
You can also check out http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/ where thay
have all kinds of info.
Regards,
Jeff
zippy
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:19:45 -0600, Jeff Thomas <jth...@fyi.net>
wrote:
Ben Goudie
> the year of birth of Harry Potter?"
For your daughter, eh? Really? Well, dating from the date of Nearly
Headless Nick's death, celebrated with his somethingty-hundredth deathday in
book 2, The second book was set in 1992. However, subsequent references to
popular culture have contradicted this a little. I'd say JK'd be foolish to
put in anything that ties it in to any definately specific year, as this
would mean it would clearly be set in the past for anyone who tries to read
the books in, say, 10 years time.
Sirius Kase
<dietric...@fonline.de> wrote:
If you want a real date, it will be different depending on whether it's
from the book or the movie.
IMO, Rowling intended the books to be set in the present which just
happened to be the 90's when she was writing, but other than that, the
exact year of Harry's birth isn't 'essential'. It distracts from the
story to mentally place the story in a time period other than the
present.
But, if you must know, the Deathday Party cake implies that the year of
CoS was 1992. Since Harry was 12, he would have been born in 1980 and
would now be 22.
Sirius Kase
--
Emma Watson: We get along very, very well.
Tom Felton: We're not really enemies. We love each other really.
Richard Eney
Ben Goudie <b_...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> from the date of Nearly Headless Nick's death, celebrated with his
> somethingty-hundredth deathday in book 2, The second book was set
> in 1992.
Five hundredth, he says, but we know Nick's a social climber.
I think he's lost track and is hoping nobody will notice as he
adjusts the date to whatever is convenient for him.
> However, subsequent references to popular culture have contradicted
> this a little. I'd say JK'd be foolish to put in anything that ties
> it in to any definitely specific year, as this would mean it would
> clearly be set in the past for anyone who tries to read the books
> in, say, 10 years time.
It's already set in the past, from that Deathday date. Harry starts
at Hogwarts in 1991, he'll start his seventh year in 1997 and leave
Hogwarts in 1998, end of series.
=Tamar
Tennant Stuart
dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney) wrote:
> In article <3dd16...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> Ben Goudie <b_...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> from the date of Nearly Headless Nick's death, celebrated with his
>> somethingty-hundredth deathday in book 2, The second book was set
>> in 1992.
> Five hundredth, he says, but we know Nick's a social climber.
> I think he's lost track and is hoping nobody will notice as he
> adjusts the date to whatever is convenient for him.
Indeedy, it could well be that Nearly Headless Nick is lying, especially
since in PS-07 he tells Harry that he hasn't eaten for nearly 400 years;
but fortunately for us, that doesn't matter, since we don't care when he
actually lived & died, all we want is the current year for Book #2.
In CoS-08, NHN says "this Halloween will be my five hundredth deathday"
while the icing on his cake says "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington died
31st October, 1492" which makes the current year 1992.
If NHN lied in CoS-08 and told the truth in PS-07, then what he should
have said (assuming he'd been dead for 398 years 10 months in Book #1)
is "this Halloween will be my four hundredth deathday" and the icing on
his cake should have said "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington died 31st
October, 1592", which still makes the current year 1992.
The same argument applies (only more strongly) if NHN told the truth in
both books, and it was JKR who was inconsistent in her writing.
>> However, subsequent references to popular culture have contradicted
>> this a little. I'd say JK'd be foolish to put in anything that ties
>> it in to any definitely specific year, as this would mean it would
>> clearly be set in the past for anyone who tries to read the books
>> in, say, 10 years time.
> It's already set in the past, from that Deathday date. Harry starts
> at Hogwarts in 1991, he'll start his seventh year in 1997 and leave
> Hogwarts in 1998, end of series.
That's right, Tamar. JKR first thought of Harry Potter in 1990, and did
most of her plotting for all 7 books in the following few years, (click
on http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ and check out the absorbing
article "August_1997_Elisabeth_Dunn_The_Daily_Telegraph"), so 1992 could
easily have been when she first thought of NHN's 500th deathday party.
Tennant Stuart
--
____ ____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____
(_ _)( ___)( \( )( \( ) /__\ ( \( )(_ _) Greetings to family
)( )__) ) ( ) ( /(__)\ ) ( )( friends & neighbours
(__) (____)(_)\_)(_)\_)(__)(__)(_)\_) (__) @argonet.co.uk & MCR
Yair Friedman
Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
> Indeedy, it could well be that Nearly Headless Nick is lying, especially
> since in PS-07 he tells Harry that he hasn't eaten for nearly 400 years;
> but fortunately for us, that doesn't matter, since we don't care when he
> actually lived & died, all we want is the current year for Book #2.
>
> In CoS-08, NHN says "this Halloween will be my five hundredth deathday"
> while the icing on his cake says "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington died
> 31st October, 1492" which makes the current year 1992.
>
> If NHN lied in CoS-08 and told the truth in PS-07, then what he should
> have said (assuming he'd been dead for 398 years 10 months in Book #1)
> is "this Halloween will be my four hundredth deathday" and the icing on
> his cake should have said "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington died 31st
> October, 1592", which still makes the current year 1992.
It also could be that NHN died on some other arbitrary year, and his
so-called 500th deathday was an excuse for him to arrange that party.
We have a stronger contradicting evidence: Harry 11th birthday was on
Tuesday July 1st. Because Grindelwald was defeated in 1945 it can't be
earlier than that.
This leaves up with 52,58,69,75,80,86 and 97 as possible candidates, and
if we look at the near future, also 03 and 08.
Dudley's Computer and VCR mentioned in PS rule out all dates past dates
except for the last two.
In GoF Dudley PlayStation is mentioned. This rule out 86 (Along with the
popular 91 theory). It possibly rule out future dates also.
So, my theory based upon fist-hand evidence in the book and not the
second-hand self-contradicting NHN is that Harry was born in 1996,
started Hogwarts in 1997, and will leave Hogwarts in 2004.
--
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build
a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate,
act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a
computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
Specialization is for insects. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Doug
Harry wasn't born on the first of July.. he *was* born, however on the
31st(end of the month-which is stated).
blizzardme
chucked his PlayStation out the window. Remember that Harry wrote the letter
to Sirius before Harry's fourteenth birthday and Mr. Dursley received the
invitation from Mrs. Weasly; in the paperback edition, page 25 and pages
28 - 29 respectively. We know that PlayStation One was release around
September 1995 and PS2 was released around October 16, 2000. Harry can not
be any older than thirteen when PSone was released. If we assume that Harry
was thirteen when the PSone was released, then the latest year that Harry
could have been born is 1982 (1995 - 13). If we go by PS2, than the latest
year that Harry could have been born is 1987 (2000 - 13).
In an earlier thread, Jeff Thomas wrote, "In book two Nearly Headless Nick
invites Harry, Ron, and Hermione to his 500th Deathday celebration. He
states that he died on the 31st of Oct 1492. Hence 500 years later is 31 Oct
1992. Since Harry turned twelve that summer before second year started he
must have been born in 1980".
So, I am going with 1982 or earlier
Thanks,
Blizzardme
Fish Eye no Miko
news:uvg30i...@amdocs.com...
> We have a stronger contradicting evidence: Harry 11th birthday was
> on Tuesday July 1st.
Harry's B-day is the 31st of July, not the 1st.
Catherine Johnson.
--
dis "able" to reply
"Oh, he makes me so mad! The horrible puny-brained meat child, with his
little glasses, and his... head! 'My name is Dib, with my pointy hair!'
Pointy hair! 'I eat food and have stuff!'."
-Zim, during one of his funnier rants, _Invader Zim_.
KEN TURNER
death days before hand and four hundred after he died. So it could be
his 500th death day. I say this because people were saying happy death
day on hallowe'en in one of the books I'm not too sure
which one I'm looking over them now.
blizzardme
Trelawney told Lavender the thing you are dreading will happen on Friday the
sixteenth of October. Friday the sixteenth of October happens on the
following years; 1987, 1992, 1998, 2009, and 2015 (It would take magic to
list all the years).
Since Harry was thirteen in PoA, we can calculate the most likely year Harry
was born and compare it to the PlayStations' release date :
1987 - 13 = 1974
1992 - 13 = 1979
1998 - 13 = 1985
2009 - 13 = 1996
2015 - 13 = 2002
PoA's copyright is 1999. There was no PS2 for Rowling to write about, so we
can just use the PSone's date of release. Based on that information, Dudley
could have received his PSone anytime after Harry was 10 (PSone's release
date: 1995 - Harry's birth date: 1985) and chucked it right before Harry's
14th birthday. It is very likely that Dudley would receive an expensive
PlayStation at the age of 11 and the PSone would be 3 years old (Harry is 13
in 1998 - PSone's release date: 1995).
Just for the fun of it lets use the PS2 date. Dudley could have received his
PS2 anytime after Harry was 4 (PS2 release date: 2000 - Harry's birth: 1996)
and chucked it right before Harry's 14th birthday. Which is highly unlikely.
I don't think Dudley would be receiving an expensive PlayStation at the age
of 5 and the PS2 would be 9 years old (Harry is 13 in 2009 - PS2 release
date: 2000). There will be a PS3 by that time.
Harry being born before or after 1985 does not make much sense. Thus, Harry
could only be born in The Year of our Lord Nineteen Hundred and Eight-Five.
Harry's date of Birth is July 31st, 1985.
Blizzardme
"blizzardme" <gosh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ar0s6g$sov$1...@reader.nmix.net...
Jed Wright
nick's 500th deathday party
Jed Wright
blizzardme
his age, someone made a mistake and put the wrong date on the cake and
Nearly Headless Nick thinks that is his deathday date because he is senile,
or Rowling made mistake about Nick's deathday date or the number of years he
has been dead.
Rowling used Friday the sixteenth of October for a reason. It may be a
special day in here life or just the day it was when she was typing that
line. PoA was copyrighted in 1999.
Friday the sixteenth of October shows up a year earlier, 1998. Harry is 13
years old in PoA. 1998 - 1985 = 13 years old.
Rowling has been wrong before, but I really do not care. I have seen worse
mistakes in Sci-Fi books compared to the Harry Potter books.
blizzardme
Doug
October the Sixteenth was when Lavendar Brown lost her bunny.. *that*
was all that was said for that date.. it has *nothing* to do with Nick...
blizzardme
People need to LEARN to read. You need to read the whole thread before you
reply, or it makes you look like a dumn ass.
Reread what I wrote.
(PERSONAL LIFE)
Rowling used Friday the sixteenth of October for a reason. It may be a
special day in here life, or just the day it was when she was typing that
line. PoA was copyrighted in 1999.
Dietrich Oberg, I found the date for you. Its 1985.
blizzardme
Richard Eney
blizzardme <gosh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Rowling used Friday the sixteenth of October for a reason. It may be a
>special day in here life or just the day it was when she was typing that
>line. PoA was copyrighted in 1999.
>
>Friday the sixteenth of October shows up a year earlier, 1998. Harry is 13
>years old in PoA. 1998 - 1985 = 13 years old.
>
>Rowling has been wrong before, but I really do not care. I have seen worse
>mistakes in Sci-Fi books compared to the Harry Potter books.
If you google for previous discussions here on this general topic, you
should find posts discussing the various dates and days of the week that
JKR used. They contradict each other. There are Tuesdays in the same
year that can't happen. There is some evidence that JKR used the same
calendar for two or three years, since Halloween is on a Saturday at least
two years in a row. And apparently some very special early-release
special-circumstances examples of the first PlayStation were just barely
available at the right time for Dudley to get one from his rich parents,
at the right time for Harry to be born in 1980. In fact, until the
Deathday party in HP#2, the Tuesdays made it more likely that Harry was
born in 1979, according to those posts.
There is _no_ way to make all the dates and days of the week JKR gives
work for any given sequence of years. The only specific year date given
clearly is the 1492 deathday date for Nick, and because of the almost
400-years comment in HP#1, even that is in doubt.
=Tamar
Sirius Kase
<ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> hat's right, Tamar. JKR first thought of Harry Potter in 1990, and did
> most of her plotting for all 7 books in the following few years, (click
> on http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ and check out the absorbing
> article "August_1997_Elisabeth_Dunn_The_Daily_Telegraph"), so 1992 could
> easily have been when she first thought of NHN's 500th deathday party.
Especially since she was looking at a 1992/93 school calendar most of
the time when she needed a date. Not quite all the time, she put
Valentine's day on a schoolday when Feb 14, 1993 was on a Sunday, but
most of the dates work for the 92/93 school year.
I got them all written down somewhere, but I will leave it as an
exercise.
sirius kase
Sirius Kase
KEN TURNER <K_DO...@interactive.rogers.com> wrote:
It's odd that they weren't celebrating Voldamort's or the Potters'
death day.
sirius Kase
Tennant Stuart
Yair Friedman <ya...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:09:52 GMT,
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>> It could well be that Nearly Headless Nick is lying, especially since
>> in PS-07 he tells Harry that he hasn't eaten for nearly 400 years; but
>> fortunately for us, that doesn't matter, since we don't care when he
>> actually lived & died, all we want is the current year for Book #2.
>> In CoS-08, NHN says "this Halloween will be my five hundredth deathday"
>> while the icing on his cake says "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington died
>> 31st October, 1492" which makes the current year 1992.
>> If NHN lied in CoS-08 and told the truth in PS-07, then what he should
>> have said (assuming he'd been dead for 398 years 10 months in Book #1)
>> is "this Halloween will be my four hundredth deathday" and the icing on
>> his cake should have said "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington died 31st
>> October, 1592", which still makes the current year 1992.
> It also could be that NHN died on some other arbitrary year, and his
> so-called 500th deathday was an excuse for him to arrange that party.
It doesn't matter. Whatever length of time he pretends it has been, that
was taken away from the current year, and iced onto the cake. If you add
the stated length of time to the stated date, you get the current year.
For example, if I tell you that I left school 19 years ago in 1983, you
don't know whether that's true or not, but you do know I said it in 2002.
Tennant
Fish Eye no Miko
news:151120021404082994%Siriu...@earthlink.net...
> It's odd that they weren't celebrating Voldamort's or the Potters'
> death day.
I think most people know at that point that Voldie's not dead. And it
seems rather crass to celebrate someone's DEATH day unless they want to.
Tennant Stuart
"blizzardme" <gosh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Extending what I said previously. In PoA hardback edition on page 104,
> Trelawney told Lavender the thing you are dreading will happen on Friday
> the sixteenth of October. Friday the sixteenth of October happens on the
> following years; <SNIP>
Fans have analysed all the cases where a weekday is given with a date,
and found that they do not fit together. This means that JKR did not
bother to use a set of calendars to get those details right, and so
weekdays are *worthless* for establishing the years.
On the other hand, JKR is quite capable of subtracting 500 from 1992
to get 1492, so Harry turned twelve in 1992.
> PSone's release date: 1995
It's also been established in earlier discussions that Playstations
were available in 1991. Though that was the year Harry turned eleven,
during Dudley's birthday he was still ten.
And in any case, we don't hear about the Playstation until GoF-02,
when Harry was 15. If he was born in 1980, that would be in 1995.
When Dudley turned 11, he was given a computer, which might easily
have been some other gaming device than a Playstation.
It's unlikely that the Playstation in 1995 was four years old - Dudley
does not look after his possessions, so they don't last very long.
Tennant Stuart
Tennant Stuart
Sirius Kase <Siriu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <na.71b2f34b94...@argonet.co.uk>,
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>> hat's right, Tamar. JKR first thought of Harry Potter in 1990, and did
>> most of her plotting for all 7 books in the following few years, (click
>> on http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ and check out the absorbing
>> article "August_1997_Elisabeth_Dunn_The_Daily_Telegraph"), so 1992 could
>> easily have been when she first thought of NHN's 500th deathday party.
> Especially since she was looking at a 1992/93 school calendar most of
> the time when she needed a date. Not quite all the time, she put
> Valentine's day on a schoolday when Feb 14, 1993 was on a Sunday, but
> most of the dates work for the 92/93 school year.
Lol
> I got them all written down somewhere, but I will leave it as an
> exercise.
Actually Sirius, it's just the sort of thing that I'm deliberately
avoiding doing as an exercise, so if you have a list of *all* the
weekday/date references, please post them. :)
Tennant
blizzardme
port, right? I remember Nintendo and Sony got into a licensing
disagreement. I think Sony only made less than 300 or so.
All I really remember is the PSX. I was going to buy one, but decided I had
better upgrade my computer so I didn't have to wait all day on MicroStation
5.
blizzardme
Jonathan Buzzard
Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
[SNIP]
>
> Actually Sirius, it's just the sort of thing that I'm deliberately
> avoiding doing as an exercise, so if you have a list of *all* the
> weekday/date references, please post them. :)
>
The very first one occurs in the fourth paragraph on the very first page
of the very first book. Though you need further evidence to tie the
dull grey Tuesday to 1st November.
JAB.
--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jona...@buzzard.org.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44(0)1661-832195
Jonathan Buzzard
Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
> In article <ar1j1b$16vh$1...@reader.nmix.net>,
> "blizzardme" <gosh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Extending what I said previously. In PoA hardback edition on page 104,
>> Trelawney told Lavender the thing you are dreading will happen on Friday
>> the sixteenth of October. Friday the sixteenth of October happens on the
>> following years; <SNIP>
>
> Fans have analysed all the cases where a weekday is given with a date,
> and found that they do not fit together. This means that JKR did not
> bother to use a set of calendars to get those details right, and so
> weekdays are *worthless* for establishing the years.
>
> On the other hand, JKR is quite capable of subtracting 500 from 1992
> to get 1492, so Harry turned twelve in 1992.
Or perhaps she wrote 1491, but then slipped when she typed it into
the computer and it never got picked up in the editing process. On
the other hand there are whole paragraphs that hing around Harry's
11th birthday being on a Tuesday.
I think it is asking a lot to hing everything around one digit,
especially give the remarks NHN makes in PS about not eating for
nearly 400 years.
Kent
>
> So, my theory based upon fist-hand evidence in the book and not the
> second-hand self-contradicting NHN is that Harry was born in 1996,
> started Hogwarts in 1997, and will leave Hogwarts in 2004.
If he started Hogwarts in 1997, wouldn't that make his birthyear 1986?
Surely the evidence doesn't suggest Harry was only 1 year old when he
started Hogwarts.
Kent
Tennant Stuart
jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:
> In article <na.a10be44b96...@argonet.co.uk>,
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>> In article <ar1j1b$16vh$1...@reader.nmix.net>,
>> "blizzardme" <gosh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Extending what I said previously. In PoA hardback edition on page 104,
>>> Trelawney told Lavender the thing you are dreading will happen on
>>> Friday the sixteenth of October. Friday the sixteenth of October
>>> happens on the following years; <SNIP>
>> Fans have analysed all the cases where a weekday is given with a date,
>> and found that they do not fit together. This means that JKR did not
>> bother to use a set of calendars to get those details right, and so
>> weekdays are *worthless* for establishing the years.
>> On the other hand, JKR is quite capable of subtracting 500 from 1992
>> to get 1492, so Harry turned twelve in 1992.
> Or perhaps she wrote 1491, but then slipped when she typed it into
> the computer and it never got picked up in the editing process. On
> the other hand there are whole paragraphs that hing around Harry's
> 11th birthday being on a Tuesday.
Maybe she slipped when typing the day, and it was meant to be Thursday.
My point is that anything can be proved if you posit a typo, so we must
not do that. I would love to use the weekdays to establish a chronology,
but the fact is that they're internally inconsistent, so we cannot.
The deathday reference is the only date in canon, so we're stuck with
it, and in any case, 1992 *was* the present when the plot was created.
> I think it is asking a lot to hing everything around one digit,
> especially give the remarks NHN makes in PS about not eating for
> nearly 400 years.
As I keep trying to explain to people, NHN probably did lie about the 500
years, but for our purposes that simply doesn't matter.
For example, if I tell you that I left school 19 years ago in 1983, you
don't know whether that's true or not, but you do know I said it in 2002.
Tennant Stuart
jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:
> In article <na.7d0e084b96...@argonet.co.uk>,
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
> [SNIP]
>> Actually Sirius, it's just the sort of thing that I'm deliberately
>> avoiding doing as an exercise, so if you have a list of *all* the
>> weekday/date references, please post them. :)
> The very first one occurs in the fourth paragraph on the very first page
> of the very first book. Though you need further evidence to tie the
> dull grey Tuesday to 1st November.
If that was the only weekday/date reference, then I would use it.
But there are many such references, and they contradict each other.
Tennant Stuart
Jonathan Buzzard
Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
> In article <bjc5ra...@192.168.42.254>,
> jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:
>
>> In article <na.7d0e084b96...@argonet.co.uk>,
>> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>
>> [SNIP]
>
>>> Actually Sirius, it's just the sort of thing that I'm deliberately
>>> avoiding doing as an exercise, so if you have a list of *all* the
>>> weekday/date references, please post them. :)
>
>> The very first one occurs in the fourth paragraph on the very first page
>> of the very first book. Though you need further evidence to tie the
>> dull grey Tuesday to 1st November.
>
> If that was the only weekday/date reference, then I would use it.
>
> But there are many such references, and they contradict each other.
>
Oh I know, just pointing it out, as most people seem to miss it as
another source of complete contradiction. The biggest problem is
that the 1979/1980 dates put the opening day of the book on a
weekend.
Jonathan Buzzard
Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
> In article <eqc5ra...@192.168.42.254>,
> jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:
>
>> In article <na.a10be44b96...@argonet.co.uk>,
>> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> In article <ar1j1b$16vh$1...@reader.nmix.net>,
>>> "blizzardme" <gosh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Extending what I said previously. In PoA hardback edition on page 104,
>>>> Trelawney told Lavender the thing you are dreading will happen on
>>>> Friday the sixteenth of October. Friday the sixteenth of October
>>>> happens on the following years; <SNIP>
>
>>> Fans have analysed all the cases where a weekday is given with a date,
>>> and found that they do not fit together. This means that JKR did not
>>> bother to use a set of calendars to get those details right, and so
>>> weekdays are *worthless* for establishing the years.
>
>>> On the other hand, JKR is quite capable of subtracting 500 from 1992
>>> to get 1492, so Harry turned twelve in 1992.
>
>> Or perhaps she wrote 1491, but then slipped when she typed it into
>> the computer and it never got picked up in the editing process. On
>> the other hand there are whole paragraphs that hing around Harry's
>> 11th birthday being on a Tuesday.
>
> Maybe she slipped when typing the day, and it was meant to be Thursday.
Not really, because then she slipped and forgot to write what
happened on the intervening days, and the bit about the TV
show and it being Harrys birthday is also wrong.
The point is that Harrys 11th birthday being on a Tuesday is woven
much more deeply into the storyline than a single digit of a date.
> My point is that anything can be proved if you posit a typo, so we must
> not do that. I would love to use the weekdays to establish a chronology,
> but the fact is that they're internally inconsistent, so we cannot.
>
> The deathday reference is the only date in canon, so we're stuck with
> it, and in any case, 1992 *was* the present when the plot was created.
Like I said you are hanging everything on a single digit. I am not
going to say either is right or wrong because you simply cannot,
and I will rail against anyone who trys to claim one is right and
one is wrong.
My *preference* is for the date that can be used to bring all the dates
into a consistent framework with the minimum amount of editing.
This makes changing the 11th birthday on a Tuesday much more difficult,
where as I can change the deathday with a single digit. Hence my
preference.
However I will never claim it is the only choice. Unless JKR edits
the books for internal consistency in a Tolkien like fashion we can
never fix the date.
Tennant Stuart
jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:
>> jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:
It doesn't matter. The weekdays in the books contradict each other.
You can't just pick those that suit your argument, and ignore the rest.
>> My point is that anything can be proved if you posit a typo, so we must
>> not do that. I would love to use the weekdays to establish a chronology,
>> but the fact is that they're internally inconsistent, so we cannot.
>> The deathday reference is the only date in canon, so we're stuck with
>> it, and in any case, 1992 *was* the present when the plot was created.
> Like I said you are hanging everything on a single digit. I am not
> going to say either is right or wrong because you simply cannot,
> and I will rail against anyone who trys to claim one is right and
> one is wrong.
I'm not insisting that the 1992 has to be correct, it's just the
only decent evidence that we currently have.
> My *preference* is for the date that can be used to bring all the dates
> into a consistent framework with the minimum amount of editing.
> This makes changing the 11th birthday on a Tuesday much more difficult,
> where as I can change the deathday with a single digit. Hence my
> preference.
Well, you're preferring a set of evidence that is internally inconsistent.
> However I will never claim it is the only choice. Unless JKR edits
> the books for internal consistency in a Tolkien like fashion we can
> never fix the date.
Let's hope someone asks her in an online chat, or JKR puts something
into a later book, (like the pronunciation of "Hermione" in GoF).
Tennant
Tennant Stuart
jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:
> In article <na.6de4a04b97...@argonet.co.uk>,
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>> In article <bjc5ra...@192.168.42.254>,
>> jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:
>>> In article <na.7d0e084b96...@argonet.co.uk>,
>>> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>>> [SNIP]
>>>> Actually Sirius, it's just the sort of thing that I'm deliberately
>>>> avoiding doing as an exercise, so if you have a list of *all* the
>>>> weekday/date references, please post them. :)
>>> The very first one occurs in the fourth paragraph on the very first
>>> page of the very first book. Though you need further evidence to tie
>>> the dull grey Tuesday to 1st November.
>> If that was the only weekday/date reference, then I would use it.
>> But there are many such references, and they contradict each other.
> Oh I know, just pointing it out, as most people seem to miss it as
> another source of complete contradiction. The biggest problem is
> that the 1979/1980 dates put the opening day of the book on a
> weekend.
You'll just have to ignore that Jonathan. JKR did not bother to use
a set of calendars to get her weekdays correct. She probably never
thought than anyone would ever care about such minute details.
Jonathan Buzzard
Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
[SNIP]
>
> It doesn't matter. The weekdays in the books contradict each other.
>
> You can't just pick those that suit your argument, and ignore the rest.
All the dating evidence conradicts itself. Even the deathday is
clouded by the remarks of NHN in the first book.
What I said is I prefer the date which requires the minimum of changes
to the text in the rest of the date references in the otherbooks. I
also have a preference for earlier date references, so a reference in
book one I regard as more important than one in book two etc.
Bearing all this in mind my preference is for Harry's birthday 11th
birthday to be on a Tuesday. I am not ignoring all the other evidence
at all. I have taken it into account carefully.
>
> I'm not insisting that the 1992 has to be correct, it's just the
> only decent evidence that we currently have.
>
Sorry but I don't agree.
>
> Well, you're preferring a set of evidence that is internally inconsistent.
All the dates are internally inconsistent.
Ursula Pfeiffer
> She probably never thought than anyone would ever care about such minute
> details.
>
has to handle it... I sometimes wonder if it could be possible for the
"Harry-Potter-World" to become as successful as the Star-Trek-Universe...
but I doubt, because I hope, that she won't overstretch the story like
Rick Berman & Co. did with Star Trek.
Greets,
Ursula
--
"Mr. Roddenberry, how does your Heisenberg-compensator work?"
"Very well, thanks!"
Tennant Stuart
"Ursula Pfeiffer" <Ursula....@gmx.net> wrote:
> "Tennant Stuart" <ten...@argonet.co.uk>
>> JKR did not bother to use a set of calendars to get her weekdays
>> correct. She probably never thought than anyone would ever care about
>> such minute
>> details.
> I think she didn't think Harry Potter becoming that world-famous. Now she
> has to handle it... I sometimes wonder if it could be possible for the
> "Harry-Potter-World" to become as successful as the Star-Trek-Universe...
> but I doubt, because I hope, that she won't overstretch the story like
> Rick Berman & Co. did with Star Trek.
Well Ursula, a HP movie is about as long as 4 Star Trek episodes, so
their product so far (640 episodes) is equivalent to 160 HP books...
Tennant Stuart
Buzzard) wrote:
> In article <na.e8a3514b98...@argonet.co.uk>,
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
> [SNIP]
>> It doesn't matter. The weekdays in the books contradict each other.
>> You can't just pick those that suit your argument, and ignore the rest.
> All the dating evidence conradicts itself. Even the deathday is
> clouded by the remarks of NHN in the first book.
No it isn't. Like I keep telling you, that doesn't matter.
If you add together the claimed date and the time ago you get the
date that it was said. It doesn't matter if it's a lie and the two
numbers are different, when you add them together you get the same.
> What I said is I prefer the date which requires the minimum of changes
> to the text in the rest of the date references in the other books. I
> also have a preference for earlier date references, so a reference in
> book one I regard as more important than one in book two etc.
> Bearing all this in mind my preference is for Harry's birthday 11th
> birthday to be on a Tuesday. I am not ignoring all the other evidence
> at all. I have taken it into account carefully.
We already know that JKR just used weekdays willy-nilly, she didn't
check them against a calendar to see that they fitted an actual date.
>> I'm not insisting that the 1992 has to be correct, it's just the
>> only decent evidence that we currently have.
> Sorry but I don't agree.
That's your privilege, but it's not cutting any mustard.
>> Well, you're preferring a set of evidence that is internally
>> inconsistent.
> All the dates are internally inconsistent.
No, the 1992 date is unconflicted.
Jonathan Buzzard
Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
> In article <scskra...@192.168.42.254>, jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan
> Buzzard) wrote:
>
>> In article <na.e8a3514b98...@argonet.co.uk>,
>> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>
>> [SNIP]
>
>>> It doesn't matter. The weekdays in the books contradict each other.
>
>>> You can't just pick those that suit your argument, and ignore the rest.
>
>> All the dating evidence conradicts itself. Even the deathday is
>> clouded by the remarks of NHN in the first book.
>
> No it isn't. Like I keep telling you, that doesn't matter.
Sorry but it does matter, it clouds the fact, the deathday party
evidence is not internally consitent in the books.
> If you add together the claimed date and the time ago you get the
> date that it was said. It doesn't matter if it's a lie and the two
> numbers are different, when you add them together you get the same.
But earlier he said ...
>
>> What I said is I prefer the date which requires the minimum of changes
>> to the text in the rest of the date references in the other books. I
>> also have a preference for earlier date references, so a reference in
>> book one I regard as more important than one in book two etc.
>
>> Bearing all this in mind my preference is for Harry's birthday 11th
>> birthday to be on a Tuesday. I am not ignoring all the other evidence
>> at all. I have taken it into account carefully.
>
> We already know that JKR just used weekdays willy-nilly, she didn't
> check them against a calendar to see that they fitted an actual date.
Sorry but they are not used willy-nilly.
>
>>> I'm not insisting that the 1992 has to be correct, it's just the
>>> only decent evidence that we currently have.
>
>> Sorry but I don't agree.
>
> That's your privilege, but it's not cutting any mustard.
>
>
>>> Well, you're preferring a set of evidence that is internally
>>> inconsistent.
>
>> All the dates are internally inconsistent.
>
> No, the 1992 date is unconflicted.
It is, because to be unconflicted then NHN would have said five
hundred and not four hundred in PS.
Like I have said many times you are placing everything on a single
character. We know there have been much bigger mistakes than this,
including in CoS. If 1492 becomes 1491, notice 1 - 2 not much
difference, easy to mistake when typing in, easy to make a mistake
when doing some arithmetic and get one out writing it down you name
it, then all of a sudden we are more internally consitent than before,
with the *smallest* possible change.
Now if you could provide some evidence that shows that 1492, has
some historical relevance in the HP universe that would be a
different matter. However 1491, 1492, 1591 and 1592 all turn up
dud in this respect. Nothing much going on in the British Isles
at all in any of these years to the best of my knowledge.
Ursula Pfeiffer
> > No, the 1992 date is unconflicted.
>
> It is, because to be unconflicted then NHN would have said five
> hundred and not four hundred in PS.
>
Let's have a look at the book "Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets",
chapter eight: "The Deathday Party", especially pages 142 and 146.
At page 142 NHN is inviting Harry to his party, explaining "Well, this
Halloween is my five hundreth deathday."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
At page 146 we can read about "an enormous grey cake in the shape of a
tombstone, with tar-like icing forming the words,
Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
died 31st October, 1492"
^^^^
That means, the present is 1992. We know that Harry is 12 then, so the
correct date of his birthday's been the 31. of July in 1980.
I don't care if JKR had used the wrong weekdays - I stick to the dates.
Greets,
Ursula
--
Take care by the way - multiple exclamation marks are a sign of
mental instability. ;-)
- Aris Katarsis in de.alt.fan.harry-potter
Ursula Pfeiffer
> Well Ursula, a HP movie is about as long as 4 Star Trek episodes, so
> their product so far (640 episodes) is equivalent to 160 HP books...
>
there are already 10 of them. ;o)
Sorry, couldn't resist it,
Tennant Stuart
"Ursula Pfeiffer" <Ursula....@gmx.net> wrote:
> "Jonathan Buzzard" <jona...@buzzard.org.uk> wrote
>> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>>> No, the 1992 date is unconflicted.
>> It is, because to be unconflicted then NHN would have said five
>> hundred and not four hundred in PS.
> He *did* say five hundred.
> Let's have a look at the book "Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets",
> chapter eight: "The Deathday Party", especially pages 142 and 146.
> At page 142 NHN is inviting Harry to his party, explaining "Well, this
> Halloween is my five hundreth deathday."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> At page 146 we can read about "an enormous grey cake in the shape of a
> tombstone, with tar-like icing forming the words,
> Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
> died 31st October, 1492"
> ^^^^
> That means, the present is 1992. We know that Harry is 12 then, so the
> correct date of his birthday's been the 31. of July in 1980.
> I don't care if JKR had used the wrong weekdays - I stick to the dates.
Absolutely, Ursula. You are very wise. :)
Tennant Stuart
"Ursula Pfeiffer" <Ursula....@gmx.net> wrote:
> "Tennant Stuart" <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote
>> Well Ursula, a HP movie is about as long as 4 Star Trek episodes, so
>> their product so far (640 episodes) is equivalent to 160 HP books...
> Oh my God... haven't thought of that yet. But: You forgot the Star
> Trek-Films, there are already 10 of them. ;o)
> Sorry, couldn't resist it,
Not at all Ursula, thankyou for correcting me.
That makes 170 HP books.
Jonathan Buzzard
"Ursula Pfeiffer" <Ursula....@gmx.net> writes:
> "Jonathan Buzzard" <jona...@buzzard.org.uk> wrote
>> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>> > No, the 1992 date is unconflicted.
>>
>> It is, because to be unconflicted then NHN would have said five
>> hundred and not four hundred in PS.
>>
> He *did* say five hundred.
No he didn't
> Let's have a look at the book "Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets",
> chapter eight: "The Deathday Party", especially pages 142 and 146.
An that is Philosophers Stone? Clearly it is not, so when you know
what you are talking about get back.
> At page 142 NHN is inviting Harry to his party, explaining "Well, this
> Halloween is my five hundreth deathday."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Curious because somehow he was able to eat food for the first 100 years
of being dead then.
> At page 146 we can read about "an enormous grey cake in the shape of a
> tombstone, with tar-like icing forming the words,
>
> Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
> died 31st October, 1492"
> ^^^^
>
> That means, the present is 1992. We know that Harry is 12 then, so the
> correct date of his birthday's been the 31. of July in 1980.
It is one piece of evidence, but like I said just change that 2 to a
1 and all of a sudden it ties in with the Harry's 11th birthday
being on a Tuesday.
> I don't care if JKR had used the wrong weekdays - I stick to the dates.
Your presumption is very clearly then that the date might not be a
mistake however. Given that their have been bigger mistakes than
a single character in the books, including in CoS this is a faulty
assumption. Given that the issue of when NHN died is inconsitent in
the books, then this doubly casts doubts to the absolute accuracy
of the given date.
Doug
Uh.. John.. you misspoken. The book of **Chamber of
Secrets**--where Ursula had quoted here.. **does** say that Nick
is 500 years old in death.
--
And he piled upon the whale's white hump, the sum of all the rage and
hate felt by his whole race. If his chest had been a cannon, he would
have shot his heart upon it. From Moby Dick as quoted by Patrick
Stewart.
Borg: We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your
ships. We
will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our
own.
Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile
Jonathan Buzzard
Doug <dnpho...@netscape.net> writes:
[SNIP]
>
> Uh.. John.. you misspoken. The book of **Chamber of
> Secrets**--where Ursula had quoted here.. **does** say that Nick
> is 500 years old in death.
>
Indeed, but that is not what I am talking about and is therefore
irrelevant to that fact that in PS he said he had not eaten for
nearly four hundred years. This simple fact makes the evidence of
NHN's death and the deathday party inconsistent in the Harry Potter
series, and therefore not definative dating evidence.
That CoS is internally consistent is besides the point, the problem
is that the series as a whole is not consistent.
Michelle Smith
>> chapter eight: "The Deathday Party", especially pages 142 and 146.
>
>An that is Philosophers Stone? Clearly it is not, so when you know
>what you are talking about get back.
>
Is this idiot back? Okay, I'll play.
Let's play MATH!!!
1992 would be Harry's (say it with me, kiddies) SECOND year, that right, in
school.
The year before that would be his (come on) FIRST, good....so if 1992 is his
second year, what is his first? That would be - do the math, kids - 1991.
Thank you for playing.
Michelle Smith
"Look at your TAIL!" ~Ron Weasley, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Ursula Pfeiffer
>
> [SNIP]
> >
> > Uh.. John.. you misspoken. The book of **Chamber of
> > Secrets**--where Ursula had quoted here.. **does** say that Nick
> > is 500 years old in death.
> >
>
> Indeed, but that is not what I am talking about and is therefore
> irrelevant to that fact that in PS he said he had not eaten for
> nearly four hundred years. This simple fact makes the evidence of
> NHN's death and the deathday party inconsistent in the Harry Potter
> series, and therefore not definative dating evidence.
>
> That CoS is internally consistent is besides the point, the problem
> is that the series as a whole is not consistent.
>
He says, he doesn't need to eat. He didn't say, he can't, and he also didn't
say that he did not eat. (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, page 136)
Perhapse he ate sometimes during his first 100
years of being dead, and after that lost the interest for it.
Greets,
Ursula
--
"So light a fire!" Harry choked.
"Yes - of course - but there's no wood!" Hermione cried, wringing her hands.
"HAVE YOU GONE MAD?" Ron bellowed. "ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?"
(Harry Potter and the Philosopher Stone, Chapter Fifteen)
Jonathan Buzzard
"Ursula Pfeiffer" <Ursula....@gmx.net> writes:
> "Jonathan Buzzard" <jona...@buzzard.org.uk> wrote
>> Doug <dnpho...@netscape.net> writes:
>>
>> [SNIP]
>> >
>> > Uh.. John.. you misspoken. The book of **Chamber of
>> > Secrets**--where Ursula had quoted here.. **does** say that Nick
>> > is 500 years old in death.
>> >
>>
>> Indeed, but that is not what I am talking about and is therefore
>> irrelevant to that fact that in PS he said he had not eaten for
>> nearly four hundred years. This simple fact makes the evidence of
>> NHN's death and the deathday party inconsistent in the Harry Potter
>> series, and therefore not definative dating evidence.
>>
>> That CoS is internally consistent is besides the point, the problem
>> is that the series as a whole is not consistent.
>>
> Hum. Hm. The thing I thought when I'd read it for the first time, was:
> He says, he doesn't need to eat. He didn't say, he can't, and he also didn't
> say that he did not eat. (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, page 136)
>
> Perhapse he ate sometimes during his first 100
> years of being dead, and after that lost the interest for it.
>
Not really because apparently ghost cannot eat at all according to
what is said in CoS.
Jonathan Buzzard
dscve...@aol.complex (Michelle Smith) writes:
>>"Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets",
>>> chapter eight: "The Deathday Party", especially pages 142 and 146.
>>
>>An that is Philosophers Stone? Clearly it is not, so when you know
>>what you are talking about get back.
>>
>
> Is this idiot back? Okay, I'll play.
>
> Let's play MATH!!!
>
> 1992 would be Harry's (say it with me, kiddies) SECOND year, that right, in
> school.
Says who.
>
> The year before that would be his (come on) FIRST, good....so if 1992 is his
> second year, what is his first? That would be - do the math, kids - 1991.
>
> Thank you for playing.
>
What relevance is this?
Doug
> In article <20021127162652...@mb-mu.aol.com>,
> dscve...@aol.complex (Michelle Smith) writes:
>
>>>"Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets",
>>>
>>>>chapter eight: "The Deathday Party", especially pages 142 and 146.
>>>
>>>An that is Philosophers Stone? Clearly it is not, so when you know
>>>what you are talking about get back.
>>>
>>
>>Is this idiot back? Okay, I'll play.
>>
>>Let's play MATH!!!
>>
>>1992 would be Harry's (say it with me, kiddies) SECOND year, that right, in
>>school.
>
>
> Says who.
>
>
>>The year before that would be his (come on) FIRST, good....so if 1992 is his
>>second year, what is his first? That would be - do the math, kids - 1991.
>>
>>Thank you for playing.
>>
>
>
> What relevance is this?
>
> JAB.
>
Thank you for shopping at K-Mart. Good Bye.
Michelle Smith
>> school.
>
>Says who.
Says JKR in the second book. NHN's birthday cake.
Maybe you should read the books.
>What relevance is this?
>
>JAB.
That 1992 minus one year equals 1991.
Jonathan Buzzard
dscve...@aol.complex (Michelle Smith) writes:
>>> 1992 would be Harry's (say it with me, kiddies) SECOND year, that right, in
>>> school.
>>
>>Says who.
>
> Says JKR in the second book. NHN's birthday cake.
>
> Maybe you should read the books.
Show me the date 1992 in the CoS please. I will pay you a hansom prize
if you can.
All you can point to is a 1492 date and the business of five hundred
years, from which you *calculate* 1992. However this is clouded by
the fact in the previous book NHN said four hundred years. Further
as JKR has been known to make mistakes before, including much more
than getting a single digit wrong in a date, and the 1992 does not
tie in with other dating evidence in the books we cannot know for
sure that 1992 is correct.
What we can say is that the most likely date for Harry's birth is
1979/1980, but that we don't know for sure. You can say you have
a preference for either (or even some other one) but you cannot
say that either is right and the other is wrong.
Troels Forchhammer
>
> All you can point to is a 1492 date and the business of five hundred
> years, from which you *calculate* 1992. However this is clouded by
> the fact in the previous book NHN said four hundred years. Further
> as JKR has been known to make mistakes before, including much more
> than getting a single digit wrong in a date, and the 1992 does not
> tie in with other dating evidence in the books we cannot know for
> sure that 1992 is correct.
>
> What we can say is that the most likely date for Harry's birth is
> 1979/1980, but that we don't know for sure. You can say you have
> a preference for either (or even some other one) but you cannot
> say that either is right and the other is wrong.
Just to get my facts straight.
IIRC from the books, NHN's deathday cake for his five hundredth
deathday (and who's to say that ghosts don't count the actual
day of their death as the first - making this 499 years since his
death - is the period explicitly stated in the book, I can't find
it right now) is the only year that is explicitly mentioned to
tie the action of the books to any period in real life.
The remainder of the 'evidence' is the combination of specific
week days to specific dates.
Is that correct?
One point that may help us is that the Comic Relief book
'Quidditch through the Ages' in ch. 9 'The Development fo the
Racing Broom' mentions the Nimbus broom models 1000, 1001,
1500 and 1700 but _not_ the 2000! It does, however, mention
the "Twigger 90, first produced in 1990"!
(This may have been brought up previously, but I haven't
seen it so far. I will, however, admit that I have this
time been too lazy to google for it.)
If we assume that the book is published in that year as well
(even though the Twigger 90 has already gained a reputation')
- at the earliest at least, then that same year (after editing
on the book had finished) is the earliest the Nimbus 2000 can
have been released.
It'll require a bit of stretching (the Twigger 90 being
released early in the year and quickly gaining a reputation as
told; the book published in late spring and the Nimbus 2000
released in the summer) but it is feasible to imagine events
so that Harry's first year at Hogwarts was the 1990 / 1991
school year.
This of course requires that the omission of the Nimbus 2000
from this paragraph (p. 51 of the chapter mentioned above):
"The Nimbus immediately became the broom preferred by
professional Quidditch teams across the Europe, and
the subsequent models (1001, 1500, and 1700) have kept
the Nimbus Racing Broom Company at the top of the field."
NHN's comment in PS about not having eaten for nearly four
hundred years, doesn't confuse _this_ issue further, as we
know when he died, and we have (if you accept my analysis of
the QttA information above) an absolute lower bound for the
start of the Harry's first year. (His comment _does_ however
confuse the issue about ghostly abilities, but that's not
relevant here.)
I think that the deathday being the five hundredth can mean
that the party takes place in either 1991 or 1992 - both of
which are possible according to the QttA evidence (though the
latter would seem the more probable in both cases, _if_ we
exclude errors). Thus secondary information must be considered
to make a decision. Does one of these years fit with more
date/week day pairs than the other?
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided
into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from,
and (d) rocks.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites)
Markku Uttula
> All you can point to is a 1492 date and the business of five hundred
> years, from which you *calculate* 1992. However this is clouded by
> the fact in the previous book NHN said four hundred years.
Well... Harry wasn't born on 18xx, was he?
--
Markku Uttula
URL: http://www.disconova.com/utu/ "Are you hot? Or at least cute?"
MAIL: markku...@disconova.com "If not, are you at least easy?"
Doug
> Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
>
>>All you can point to is a 1492 date and the business of five hundred
>>years, from which you *calculate* 1992. However this is clouded by
>>the fact in the previous book NHN said four hundred years.
>
>
> Well... Harry wasn't born on 18xx, was he?
>
He was actually born 1863 B.C. :-P
Michelle Smith
>if you can.
Really? Hansom as in cab? I didn't think they still had those!
>All you can point to is a 1492 date and the business of five hundred
>years, from which you *calculate* 1992.
Righty-o! 1492, plus 500 years, equals 1992.
>However this is clouded by
>the fact in the previous book NHN said four hundred years.
I don't think he would have said "four-hundred-and-ninety-nine-years", do you?
Unless NHN is an anal-retentive. It wasn't five hundred years, yet, so the
guy was probably generalizing. Get a grip.
>Further
>as JKR has been known to make mistakes before, including much more
>than getting a single digit wrong in a date, and the 1992 does not
>tie in with other dating evidence in the books we cannot know for
>sure that 1992 is correct.
There's a difference between someone saying "four hundred years" vs. "four
hundred ninety eight years, three weeks and two days" and having a
five-hundredth deathday party with a cake with the date written on it.
>What we can say is that the most likely date for Harry's birth is
>1979/1980, but that we don't know for sure. You can say you have
>a preference for either (or even some other one) but you cannot
>say that either is right and the other is wrong.
>
>JAB.
Yes, Jon the Buzzard is the only one who can make such proclamations.
Get me a nice horse with that hansom cab, will you?
Anthony J (Tony) Hagen
Don't overlook the corrections made with the introduction of
the Gregorian calender.
Regards, Tony H.
--
Anthony J (Tony) Hagen ton...@netlink.com.au
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Don't overlook the corrections made with the introduction of
> the Gregorian calender.
Great ;-)
Unfortunately it can't account for more than some 10 - 12 days
(depending on when the British went Gregorian).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
A Thaum is the basic unit of magical strength. It has been
universally established as the amount of magic needed to
create one small white pigeon or three normal sized billiard
balls.
-- (Terry Pratchett, The Light Fantastic)
Jonathan Buzzard
dscve...@aol.complex (Michelle Smith) writes:
>>Show me the date 1992 in the CoS please. I will pay you a hansom prize
>>if you can.
>
> Really? Hansom as in cab? I didn't think they still had those!
>
>>All you can point to is a 1492 date and the business of five hundred
>>years, from which you *calculate* 1992.
>
> Righty-o! 1492, plus 500 years, equals 1992.
So you cannot actually point to the date 1992 in CoS can you.
>>However this is clouded by
>>the fact in the previous book NHN said four hundred years.
>
> I don't think he would have said "four-hundred-and-ninety-nine-years", do you?
> Unless NHN is an anal-retentive. It wasn't five hundred years, yet, so the
> guy was probably generalizing. Get a grip.
No he said he had not eaten for nearly four hundred years, which is
some number less than 400, like 399 or 398 or something like that.
>>Further
>>as JKR has been known to make mistakes before, including much more
>>than getting a single digit wrong in a date, and the 1992 does not
>>tie in with other dating evidence in the books we cannot know for
>>sure that 1992 is correct.
>
> There's a difference between someone saying "four hundred years" vs. "four
> hundred ninety eight years, three weeks and two days" and having a
> five-hundredth deathday party with a cake with the date written on it.
Where on earth are you getting this rubbish from. In PS/SS NHN when
asked says he as not eaten for nearly 400 years, this is less than
400. In CoS suddenly he is celibrating the 500th aniversary of his
death, yet we know ghosts cannot eat. Clearly there is an inconsistancy
here surrounding just how long NHN has been dead.
>>What we can say is that the most likely date for Harry's birth is
>>1979/1980, but that we don't know for sure. You can say you have
>>a preference for either (or even some other one) but you cannot
>>say that either is right and the other is wrong.
>>
>>JAB.
>
> Yes, Jon the Buzzard is the only one who can make such proclamations.
>
> Get me a nice horse with that hansom cab, will you?
>
No because you cannot ever possibly point to the date 1992 in CoS,
because such a date is never ever given. The date is *implied* from
the date of NHN death, and the fact he is apparently celibrating
his 500th death. However an implication is not the same as an
outright statement and further more it is part of an inconsistent set
of facts in the books.
Why is this so hard to accept?
Jonathan Buzzard
Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> writes:
> "Anthony J (Tony) Hagen" wrote:
>>
>> Don't overlook the corrections made with the introduction of
>> the Gregorian calender.
>
> Great ;-)
>
> Unfortunately it can't account for more than some 10 - 12 days
> (depending on when the British went Gregorian).
>
It accounts for 11 days to be precise. Anyone telling you that
the peasents revolt about give us back our 11 days is because
they where a bit thick is a bit thick themselves.
What they correctly realized is that as they payed annual rents
to their landlords, they where paying the same rent as normal
but getting 11 less days for it, and wanted a reduction in their
rents.
In a related move the first lord of the treasury at the same time
moved the end of the tax year forward 11 days from Lady Day (25th
March), for exactly the same reason.
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> writes:
>>
>> "Anthony J (Tony) Hagen" wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't overlook the corrections made with the introduction of
>>> the Gregorian calender.
>>
>> Great ;-)
>>
>> Unfortunately it can't account for more than some 10 - 12 days
>> (depending on when the British went Gregorian).
>>
>
> It accounts for 11 days to be precise.
Thanks - I wasn't entirely sure, so I thought it better to
leave it a bit open ;-)
Do you know when you went over?
> Anyone telling you that
> the peasents revolt about give us back our 11 days is because
> they where a bit thick is a bit thick themselves.
Something of the same sort happened in Denmark when we went
over - and some of it was actually superstitious nonsense.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided
Troels Forchhammer
>
> No because you cannot ever possibly point to the date 1992 in CoS,
> because such a date is never ever given. The date is *implied* from
> the date of NHN death, and the fact he is apparently celibrating
> his 500th death. However an implication is not the same as an
> outright statement and further more it is part of an inconsistent set
> of facts in the books.
Would the ghosts include the actual day of death as their first
deathday?
Or would that be the zeroeth as with birthdays?
As far as I have been able to tell the day is _only_ referenced as
Sir Nicholas' "five hundredth deathday" - the period 500 years is
never mentioned, nor is it mentioned how those 500 deathdays should
be counted.
So even if we accept the evidence in CoS - disregarding his comment
in PS about 'nearly four hundred years - it is - IMO - not possible
to pinpoint the year with complete certainty (evidence in QttA very
strongly suggests that 1991 is the earliest possible year for CoS to
start, but that doesn't help here).
Michelle Smith
>
>So you cannot actually point to the date 1992 in CoS can you.
Are you incapable of elementary-school math?
>No he said he had not eaten for nearly four hundred years, which is
>some number less than 400, like 399 or 398 or something like that.
"nearly" can be more, too.
>Where on earth are you getting this rubbish from. In PS/SS NHN when
>asked says he as not eaten for nearly 400 years, this is less than
>400.
No.
>In CoS suddenly he is celibrating the 500th aniversary of his
>death, yet we know ghosts cannot eat. Clearly there is an inconsistancy
>here surrounding just how long NHN has been dead.
1492 plus 500 equals?
Come on! You can do it!
>> Get me a nice horse with that hansom cab, will you?
>>
>
>No because you cannot ever possibly point to the date 1992 in CoS,
I just did.
> The date is *implied* from
>the date of NHN death, and the fact he is apparently celibrating
>his 500th death.
Implied? Are you mad?
>However an implication is not the same as an
>outright statement and further more it is part of an inconsistent set
>of facts in the books.
It's right there - do the math - literally.
>Why is this so hard to accept?
>
I think I want a brown horse with my hansom cab.
And I want the wheels calibrated properly as well.
Michelle Smith
"Look at your TAIL!" ~Ron Weasley, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
"Dammit, Jim! I'm an astronomer, not a doctor!" ~Dr. Doppler, Treasure Planet
Kal Alexander
news:20021202234047...@mb-dh.aol.com...
Apparently his date of death is exactly October 31, 1492, according to the
cake at his deathday party.
"Large, rotten fish were laid on handsome silver platters; cakes, burned
charcoal-black, were heaped on salvers; there was a great maggoty haggis,
a slab of cheese covered in furry green mold and, in pride of place, an
enormous gray cake in the shape of a tombstone, with tar-like icing
forming the words,
Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
died 31st October, 1492"
I think that is pretty damn clear.
Later
Kal
--
Dear People of Earth
I have someone interested in the property.
Please be out by the end of the week.
God
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
>>
>
> "nearly" can be more, too.
But 'nearly four hundred years' could never be within a couple
of years of 500 - IMO.
>> In CoS suddenly he is celibrating the 500th aniversary of his
>> death, yet we know ghosts cannot eat. Clearly there is an
>> inconsistancy here surrounding just how long NHN has been dead.
>
> 1492 plus 500 equals?
It is not a question of math. The problem is that the number
500 years is uncertain! And 1492 is not all that certain
either.
In PS Sir Nicholas tells us that he hasn't eaten in nearly 400
years - and that, mind you, is the only occasion where an actual
period is mentioned!
In CoS, Harry (together with Ron and Hermione) is invited to
the celebration of Sir Nicholas' five hundredth deathday - the
actual number of years is _not_ mentioned anywhere!
We have no way of knowing how the ghosts calculate the number
of deathdays except for _assuming_ that it is done the same
way we would calculate the anniversaries of something (i.e.
starting with 0 and counting 1 up for each year).
If we restrict ourselves to one assumption - that the number
is incremented by one each year on the date, then the actual
period can be 499 years, 500 years or 501 years!
So we have decide what to use: The 'nearly four hundred years'
as stated in PS or the about 500 years that _we__calculate_
based on the information in CoS.
As I have stated elsewhere I don't think that Harry's first
year at Hogwarts could have been earlier than 1990/1991, but
that doesn't help us much either.
The starting point of the calculation can also easily be
questioned - _because_ of the inconsistency of the periods!
I can very well imagine Sir Nicholas lying himself about
a hundred years longer dead in the hope that Sir Patrick
would seize the occasion of the deathday party to admit
Sir Nicholas in the hunt (a pity it didn't work). So we can
actually not be _sure_ of anything!
But when all that is said and done, I for one, am confident
that a dating of CoS as one of the academic years 1991/92,
1992/93 or 1993/94 is by far the most probable.
Jonathan Buzzard
Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> writes:
> Michelle Smith wrote:
>>
>> Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
>>>
>>
>> "nearly" can be more, too.
>
> But 'nearly four hundred years' could never be within a couple
> of years of 500 - IMO.
However in this context it always means less than. So it is
irrelevant.
>>> In CoS suddenly he is celibrating the 500th aniversary of his
>>> death, yet we know ghosts cannot eat. Clearly there is an
>>> inconsistancy here surrounding just how long NHN has been dead.
>>
>> 1492 plus 500 equals?
>
> It is not a question of math. The problem is that the number
> 500 years is uncertain! And 1492 is not all that certain
> either.
The point is that the date 1992 never appears, and can only
be reached by calculation. It does not matter how easy that
calculation is. Further more if you as me 1992 is his 501th
death day, his first death day being the day he died in 1492.
Wonderfull now I don't need to make any changes and it ties
in with Harrys 11th birthday being on a Tuesday.
> In PS Sir Nicholas tells us that he hasn't eaten in nearly 400
> years - and that, mind you, is the only occasion where an actual
> period is mentioned!
>
> In CoS, Harry (together with Ron and Hermione) is invited to
> the celebration of Sir Nicholas' five hundredth deathday - the
> actual number of years is _not_ mentioned anywhere!
>
> We have no way of knowing how the ghosts calculate the number
> of deathdays except for _assuming_ that it is done the same
> way we would calculate the anniversaries of something (i.e.
> starting with 0 and counting 1 up for each year).
See above if we assume your first deathday is the day you
die, which would on a strictly literal basis is the only
valid way to count it, NHN's 500'th deathday took place
in 1991, and puff the problem vanishes.
> If we restrict ourselves to one assumption - that the number
> is incremented by one each year on the date, then the actual
> period can be 499 years, 500 years or 501 years!
>
> So we have decide what to use: The 'nearly four hundred years'
> as stated in PS or the about 500 years that _we__calculate_
> based on the information in CoS.
>
> As I have stated elsewhere I don't think that Harry's first
> year at Hogwarts could have been earlier than 1990/1991, but
> that doesn't help us much either.
>
> The starting point of the calculation can also easily be
> questioned - _because_ of the inconsistency of the periods!
> I can very well imagine Sir Nicholas lying himself about
> a hundred years longer dead in the hope that Sir Patrick
> would seize the occasion of the deathday party to admit
> Sir Nicholas in the hunt (a pity it didn't work). So we can
> actually not be _sure_ of anything!
>
> But when all that is said and done, I for one, am confident
> that a dating of CoS as one of the academic years 1991/92,
> 1992/93 or 1993/94 is by far the most probable.
>
Indeed, these are the most probable but we cannot know for sure.
Tennant Stuart
Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
> Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
>> No because you cannot ever possibly point to the date 1992 in CoS,
>> because such a date is never ever given. The date is *implied* from
>> the date of NHN death, and the fact he is apparently celibrating
>> his 500th death. However an implication is not the same as an
>> outright statement and further more it is part of an inconsistent set
>> of facts in the books.
> Would the ghosts include the actual day of death as their first
> deathday? Or would that be the zeroeth as with birthdays?
> As far as I have been able to tell the day is _only_ referenced as
> Sir Nicholas' "five hundredth deathday" - the period 500 years is
> never mentioned, nor is it mentioned how those 500 deathdays should
> be counted.
> So even if we accept the evidence in CoS - disregarding his comment
> in PS about 'nearly four hundred years - it is - IMO - not possible
> to pinpoint the year with complete certainty (evidence in QttA very
> strongly suggests that 1991 is the earliest possible year for CoS to
> start, but that doesn't help here).
Troels, I'm hoping you'll understand something which Jonathan won't...
Sir Nicholas was probably lying about his five hundredth deathday, and
it probably was more like 400; but it does not matter for the purposes
of our calculation, since the claimed date PLUS the claimed length of
time will still give the year that the claim was made, which is 1992.
Tennant Stuart
Richard Eney
The next year, in HP#2, he says it's an even number of hundreds of years
since he died. Logically it should be his four hundredth deathday.
But as we all know, there are problems with that.
Sir Nicholas's Deathday is reported to have been 31 Oct, 1492 and he is
celebrating the anniversary on 31 Oct, modern Halloween. But because
of the eleven-day change in the calendar, it wasn't really his actual
Deathday anniversary. The real one would have been approximately 11 Nov.,
modern calendar. (The changeover was during the lifetime of people born
in the 18th century. Some of them quietly celebrated both days.)
So NHN was stretching a point anyway.
Maybe having the party on Halloween was the only way NHN could get
Hogwarts to do the decorations for him.
Then there's the question of why 1492. It's a date which is only really
significant to someone who has to remember the date for history class,
such as a school child, but as such it is more famous than, for instance,
1491 or 1592.
Nearly Headless Nick also is known to wear a ruff, which is a 16th century
style, reputed to have been started when Henry VIII wore a neckband and
it developed from there. It is definitely not a 1492 style. But it is a
style that would have been worn around 1592. We know Nick can change his
apparent clothing, but he always wears 16th century fashions.
I think NHN is lying in his teeth about that date. However, since he
seems to have chosen it solely to be dramatic and impressive, he would
have chosen it to be at least believable on the face of it, so the claim
NHN makes that 1492 is 500 years from the date of the actual party would
imply that CoS is dated 1992.
That doesn't mean that JKR didn't originally set PS/SS in 1989-1990 school
year, which would fit one of the "tuesday" dates (though not other
day-dates). Quite some time ago someone else analyzed those day-dates and
reported that JKR seems to have set HP#1 in 1990-1991, then shifted with
HP#2 to 1992-1993 (probably so she could use 1492).
JKR then stayed with that same 1992-1993 calendar for HP#3 (in which, I
believe it was said, the full moons happen at the right time in the story
for that calendar year). She used it again for HP#4, which is why
Halloween is always on Saturday.
It's no worse than the dating goofs in many other famous books. I think
there's a book titled _How Old Is Heathcliff_ or something like that,
about similar the goofs in famous literature.
Still, I do wonder about NHN. He might just be ignoring the calendar
change, but the four or five hundred year problem sounds like a deliberate
lie.
=Tamar
Tim Bruening
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
blizzardme wrote:
> In an earlier thread, Jeff Thomas wrote, "In book two Nearly Headless Nick
> invites Harry, Ron, and Hermione to his 500th Deathday celebration. He
> states that he died on the 31st of Oct 1492. Hence 500 years later is 31 Oct
> 1992. Since Harry turned twelve that summer before second year started he
> must have been born in 1980".
This means that book 1 occurs in 1991-92, book 2 in 1992-93, book 3 in 1993-94,
and book 4 in 1994-95. Book 7 should occur in 1997-98, so Harry Potter
graduated in June of 1998.
Voldemort regained his full strength in June of 1995. What horrific events were
occurring at that time that Voldemort might contribute to? IIRC, there were
massacres in Rwanda and Bosnia at around that time.
Michelle Smith
>graduated in June of 1998.
No he didn't. Hogwarts students don't graduate.
Michelle Smith
"Someone I love dies...sorry..." ~J.K.Rowling, Sotheby's note
"Dammit, Jim! I'm an astronomer, not a doctor!" ~Dr. Doppler, Treasure Planet
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/02/020402_Liberal_Bias_A_Myth.html
Michelle Smith
>were
>occurring at that time that Voldemort might contribute to? IIRC, there were
>massacres in Rwanda and Bosnia at around that time.
>
The Oklahoma City bombing, but that was in the US.
1996: Mad Cow Disease
1997: Death of Princess Diana (I'm getting this list from CNN, stop throwing
things at me), anarchy and riots in Albania, Voldy's former hideout.
I don't see any huge disasters in the UK during that time.
Tim Bruening
Michelle Smith wrote:
> >so Harry Potter
> >graduated in June of 1998.
>
> No he didn't. Hogwarts students don't graduate.
What do they do when they finish their 7 year tenure as students?
Tim Bruening
Michelle Smith wrote:
> >Voldemort regained his full strength in June of 1995. What horrific events
> >were
> >occurring at that time that Voldemort might contribute to? IIRC, there were
> >massacres in Rwanda and Bosnia at around that time.
> >
>
> The Oklahoma City bombing, but that was in the US.
>
> 1996: Mad Cow Disease
>
> 1997: Death of Princess Diana (I'm getting this list from CNN, stop throwing
> things at me), anarchy and riots in Albania, Voldy's former hideout.
>
> I don't see any huge disasters in the UK during that time.
Perhaps Voldemort will help the Taliban come to power, and help Osama bin Laden!
Maybe he IS Osama bin Laden! (He could have replaced the real bin Laden).
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>>
>> As far as I have been able to tell the day is _only_ referenced as
>> Sir Nicholas' "five hundredth deathday" - the period 500 years is
>> never mentioned, nor is it mentioned how those 500 deathdays should
>> be counted.
>>
>> So even if we accept the evidence in CoS - disregarding his comment
>> in PS about 'nearly four hundred years - it is - IMO - not possible
>> to pinpoint the year with complete certainty (evidence in QttA very
>> strongly suggests that 1991 is the earliest possible year for CoS to
>> start, but that doesn't help here).
>
> Troels, I'm hoping you'll understand something which Jonathan won't...
>
> Sir Nicholas was probably lying about his five hundredth deathday, and
> it probably was more like 400; but it does not matter for the purposes
> of our calculation, since the claimed date PLUS the claimed length of
> time will still give the year that the claim was made, which is 1992.
But haven't you seen my rather ingenious (I'm quite proud of it ;-)
argument that we don't know if the length from the claimed date was
499, 500 or 501 years ... ;-)
(499 years is if October 31, 1492 is counted as well, 500 is as per
normal Muggle anniversary counting, 501 is if October 31 was one of
the dates that disappeared when the wizarding community when over to
the Gregorian calendar AND this caused the ghosts to not count that
year ;-)
You are of course right that if Sir Nicholas was lying, then he would
make sure that the calculations gave the number he wanted from the
date on the cake. I didn't think of that (ok - I could get perfidious
and claim that Sir Nicholas may have made an error in his calculations,
but that would be going over the top, wouldn't it ;-).
Actually I have no problem using 1992 as the most probable, but I
think Jonathan is right in saying that we can't be 100% sure as this
dating is not internally consistent (the weekday & date problem).
You know I'm quite particular to stating not quite certain derivations
as such ;-)
Jonathan Buzzard
They simply leave like every other pupil at a school in the United
Kingdom. Like every other pupil at a school in the United Kingdom
what is important is the results they got in their exams which
are entirely seperate from the process of finishing their schooling.
Think about the talk of OWL's and NEWT's, and the total lack of
any talk of graduation.
Here is a passage from PS (Harry and Ron are on the Hogwarts Express) that
demonstrates this lack of graduation very clearly.
`You know, I think the ends of Scabbers' whiskers are a bit lighter,'
said Harry, trying to take Ron's mind off houses. `So what do your
oldest brothers do now that they've left, anyway?'
Harry was wondering what a wizard did once he'd finished school.
`Charlie's in Romania studying dragons, and Bill's in Africa doing
something for Gringotts,' said Ron. `Did you hear about Gringotts?
It's been all over the *Daily Prophet*, but I don't suppose you get
that with the Muggles -- someone tried to rob a high security vault.'
If you graduated from Hogwarts I would expect that the word graduated
would have been used in the above extract.
Jonathan Buzzard
Oh I understand that fine. However I make a distinct differentation
between a printed date of 1992, and a date of 1992 that is arrived
at by a calculation. Further more as we don't actually know
how ghosts count deathdays we don't know the sum is correct either.
All it requires is that the day you die is your first death day
which strictly speaking if we take it literally it is, then
NHN's 500 death day occurs in 1991.
What I maintain is that details surrounding the calculation are
firstly clouded so you can get a range of dates from it. Secondly
the date 1992 is never explicitly mentioned, and as such the date
1992 never appears in CoS. Nobody has yet pointed to the date 1992
in CoS, simply because they never can, because it is not there.
You can do a calculation to get 1992, but that is not the same
as 1992 appearing in black and white.
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Quite some time ago someone else analyzed those day-dates and
> reported that JKR seems to have set HP#1 in 1990-1991, then shifted with
> HP#2 to 1992-1993 (probably so she could use 1492).
> JKR then stayed with that same 1992-1993 calendar for HP#3 (in which, I
> believe it was said, the full moons happen at the right time in the story
> for that calendar year). She used it again for HP#4, which is why
> Halloween is always on Saturday.
Very good Tamar!
All in all, it would seem to me that it is overwhelmingly
probable that CoS is set in either 1991-92 or 1992-93 -
the exact dating being impossible, but (if you ask me) also
uninteresting (making up the theories is fun, though ;-)
> Still, I do wonder about NHN. He might just be ignoring the calendar
> change, but the four or five hundred year problem sounds like a deliberate
> lie.
I wouldn't wonder - that old rascal ...
Dragon Friend
news:3DEDBC07...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us...
schools do, here in the UK for the most part only the University students
have a Graduation Ceremony.
Dragon Friend
~~~
"Humanity... so noble, always willing to sacrifice... the other fellow." ~~
Max von Sydow in NEEDFUL THINGS.
"...perhaps all the dragons of our lives are princesses who are only waiting
to see us once beautiful
and brave..." By Rainer Maria Rilke
Check out these websites http://www.maxvonsydow.net
http://www.maxvonsydow.da.ru
Kal Alexander
analysis over any given point. This is not real life, so many of the
details of real life do not apply unless the author specifically intended
them to. That clearly is not the case here. We are left with two options.
1) Take what facts we do have, or 2) Read between the lines. NHN has made
comments in passing, and has also given specific numbers that conflict. I
would be more inclined to disregard passing comments than specific dates and
numbers, and the only reason I can see to accept that NHN would have lied
about the dates and numbers is to perpetuate this thread.
NHN put the year 1492 on his deathday cake. He called it his 500th deathday
party. To the expected readership of these books, 1492 plus 500 equals
1992. Only an idiot would argue otherwise. While I enjoy the discussions
concerning potential plot twists and expansions on the Potter universe, to
take what is obviously an oversight on the author's part and pick it to
pieces seems pointless. On the other hand, it has gotten several members of
this group to research details necessary to debate this issue. On that
level it is not so pointless after all.
Jonathan Buzzard
"Kal Alexander" <ke...@qwest.net> writes:
[SNIP]
> NHN put the year 1492 on his deathday cake. He called it his 500th deathday
> party. To the expected readership of these books, 1492 plus 500 equals
> 1992. Only an idiot would argue otherwise. While I enjoy the discussions
> concerning potential plot twists and expansions on the Potter universe, to
> take what is obviously an oversight on the author's part and pick it to
> pieces seems pointless. On the other hand, it has gotten several members of
> this group to research details necessary to debate this issue. On that
> level it is not so pointless after all.
>
Rubbish there is loads going on in these books that is way way over
the head of most children and a good few adults. In addition JKR
is on the record repeatedly to say that she does not and has not
target the books at children, but writes them for herself.
I have been told emphatically by people with history degrees that
Nicholas Flamel was not a real person, and I was talking rubbish.
Personally I am more and more leaning towards the idea that your
first death day is the day you die and the problem vanishes
anyway.
James Burbidge
Kal Alexander
news:3j2msa...@192.168.42.254...
> In article <WjpH9.450849$6N5....@post-03.news.easynews.com>,
> "Kal Alexander" <ke...@qwest.net> writes:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > NHN put the year 1492 on his deathday cake. He called it his 500th
deathday
> > party. To the expected readership of these books, 1492 plus 500 equals
> > 1992. Only an idiot would argue otherwise. While I enjoy the
discussions
> > concerning potential plot twists and expansions on the Potter universe,
to
> > take what is obviously an oversight on the author's part and pick it to
> > pieces seems pointless. On the other hand, it has gotten several
members of
> > this group to research details necessary to debate this issue. On that
> > level it is not so pointless after all.
> >
>
> Rubbish there is loads going on in these books that is way way over
> the head of most children and a good few adults. In addition JKR
> is on the record repeatedly to say that she does not and has not
> target the books at children, but writes them for herself.
I have mentioned before that I think people tend to see what they want to
see in these books. JKR has a rather open writing style which leaves a lot
of room between the lines. That is one reason this group is so lively.
These 'between the lines' plots may or may not be intended by the author,
and I think this particular one is unintentional. After all, she is more
that halfway through the series, and this aspect has had no importance to
the story yet, and I haven't heard any reasons to believe it will be. As
far as her target audience, she may have initially started by writing for
herself, but I think her marketing decisions and the millions in her account
show that she has had a change of heart lately.
>
> I have been told emphatically by people with history degrees that
> Nicholas Flamel was not a real person, and I was talking rubbish.
Of course he is real. There are a variety of sources that affirm that fact.
The problem I have run across is the biographical information. Some talk
about him like Hermione did, and others claim he was nothing more than a
street magician and con man who, although he researched the Stone for many
years, he made up the story of actually creating it to explain ill-gotten
monies.
>
> Personally I am more and more leaning towards the idea that your
> first death day is the day you die and the problem vanishes
> anyway.
>
> JAB.
>
Well, that is true. But when you are counting your death age in years, you
can't count 1 until 1 year has passed, just like your birthdays.
Markku Uttula
> when you are counting your death age in years, you can't count
> 1 until 1 year has passed, just like your birthdays.
But the question is, _are_ you counting your *death age* or *death
days*. The first day you were dead, was presumably the day you died. The
first anniversary of your death day would be held one year afterwards.
This would be "I've been dead for a full year now" day.
Do the ghosts think of this that way or not, is questionable.
--
Markku Uttula
URL: http://www.disconova.com/utu/ "Are you hot? Or at least cute?"
MAIL: markku...@disconova.com "If not, are you at least easy?"
Michelle Smith
They leave.
Troels Forchhammer
>
> I didn't get from reading the Potter books that JKR intended this depth of
> analysis over any given point. This is not real life, so many of the
> details of real life do not apply unless the author specifically intended
> them to.
And the relevance is?
I honestly don't care if it was intended - it is fun!
_That_ is all that matters to me.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.
Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague
(Thus speaks the quantum physicist)
Jonathan Buzzard
Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> writes:
> Kal Alexander wrote:
>>
>> I didn't get from reading the Potter books that JKR intended this depth of
>> analysis over any given point. This is not real life, so many of the
>> details of real life do not apply unless the author specifically intended
>> them to.
>
> And the relevance is?
None what so ever, and it is inaccurate as well.
Kal Alexander
news:3DEF450C...@ThisIsFake.dk...
> Kal Alexander wrote:
> >
> > I didn't get from reading the Potter books that JKR intended this depth
of
> > analysis over any given point. This is not real life, so many of the
> > details of real life do not apply unless the author specifically
intended
> > them to.
>
> And the relevance is?
>
The relevance is this: If JKR had woven this theme into the storyline
because it would be important later on, then there would be an answer to
decypher. If, as I suspect, it is here because she just didn't bother to
check details on a minor point, or because of editorial errors, then there
isn't a solution.
> I honestly don't care if it was intended - it is fun!
> _That_ is all that matters to me.
>
That is relevant.
>
> --
> Troels Forchhammer
> Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
>
Later
Kal Alexander
news:asmq1e$s86$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> Kal Alexander wrote:
> > when you are counting your death age in years, you can't count
> > 1 until 1 year has passed, just like your birthdays.
>
> But the question is, _are_ you counting your *death age* or *death
> days*. The first day you were dead, was presumably the day you died. The
> first anniversary of your death day would be held one year afterwards.
> This would be "I've been dead for a full year now" day.
>
> Do the ghosts think of this that way or not, is questionable.
>
> --
> Markku Uttula
Questionable? Only if you are being intentionally obtuse and argumentative.
Kal Alexander
> In article <3DEF450C...@thisisfake.dk>,
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> writes:
> > Kal Alexander wrote:
> >>
> >> I didn't get from reading the Potter books that JKR intended this depth
of
> >> analysis over any given point. This is not real life, so many of the
> >> details of real life do not apply unless the author specifically
intended
> >> them to.
> >
> > And the relevance is?
>
> None what so ever, and it is inaccurate as well.
>
> JAB.
>
Nothing is relevant if you choose it not to be. Most narrow-minded people
tend to only see relevance when it supports their own narrow views. And I
am very curious: Just what about my statement that this isn't real life do
you find inaccurate? You do realize this is a fiction book series, and not
a biography, don't you?
Troels Forchhammer
>
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>>
>
> The relevance is this: If JKR had woven this theme into the
> storyline because it would be important later on, then there
> would be an answer to decypher. If, as I suspect, it is here
> because she just didn't bother to check details on a minor
> point, or because of editorial errors, then there isn't a
> solution.
Sorry, I probably misunderstood you (I was a little upset by
the 'only an idiot would argue otherwise' comment, which - IMO -
came dangerously close to 'only an idiot would disagree with me',
though re-reading I see that you were referring only to the
actual math, not, apparently, to arguments over the numbers).
You were apparently referring to the futility of trying to
decipher the authorial intention if no such intention is present,
while I was referring to the analysis itself as an intellectual
exercise based on a fiction I love - two very different concepts.
I am not sure that I agree on the general principle about the
depth (obscurity even ;-) with which JKR's intention is 'hidden',
as the books IMO are written on many levels (I don't care if
she's writing for kids, for herself or for me ;-) where some
of the information requires some careful analysis to unveil.
This may or may not be the case with this particular question,
but a proper analysis of the possibilities is still - IMO - a
worthy pursuit in itself (I actually believe that the question
about the period is left deliberately ambiguous - at least from
book 3 forwards, but probably in all the books).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
- I USHERED SOULS INTO THE NEXT WORLD. I WAS THE GRAVE OF ALL
HOPE. I WAS THE ULTIMATE REALITY. I WAS THE ASSASSIN AGAINST
WHOM NO LOCK WOULD HOLD.
- "Yes, point taken, but do you have any particular skills?"
-- Death consults a job broker (Terry Pratchett, Mort)
Sirius Kase
<ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> If that was the only weekday/date reference, then I would use it.
>
> But there are many such references, and they contradict each other.
The bad rabbit news and the dates of the three tasks are all 1992/93
school year. I've got a spreadsheet around here somehere with more
dates, but I've been busy. It's kinda neat.
sirius kase
--
Emma Watson: We get along very, very well.
Tom Felton: We're not really enemies. We love each other really.
Jonathan Buzzard
"Kal Alexander" <ke...@qwest.net> writes:
[SNIP]
>
> Nothing is relevant if you choose it not to be. Most narrow-minded people
> tend to only see relevance when it supports their own narrow views. And I
> am very curious: Just what about my statement that this isn't real life do
> you find inaccurate? You do realize this is a fiction book series, and not
> a biography, don't you?
The comment about the intended audience is not relevant. Firstly it is
wrong, and secondly there is clearly loads of stuff in the books that
passes right over most children less than 10 years old. How many
know Sirius is a star also known as the dog star? How many know
that Lupin is Latin for wolf, or that Remius is the name of one of
the twins that founded Rome and was raised by a wolf? How many
get the connection with a three headed dog purchased from a Greek
chappy? How many know Flamel is real? How many know that Aggripa
is real? How many know the about the background of Mandrakes?
I could go on and on but I won't. The point is that most children
just don't know this stuff.
In addition if you add all this stuff you are inviting analysis.
Tennant Stuart
Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
> I can very well imagine Sir Nicholas lying himself about
> a hundred years longer dead in the hope that Sir Patrick
> would seize the occasion of the deathday party to admit
> Sir Nicholas in the hunt (a pity it didn't work). So we can
> actually not be _sure_ of anything!
Yes we can, Troels.
We can't be sure when NHN died.
We can't be sure how long ago that was.
But we can be sure that the two numbers added together make 1992.
If I say to you that I left school 19 years ago in 1983, you do not
know if I'm telling the truth, but you do know I said it in 2002.
Tennant
--
____ ____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____
(_ _)( ___)( \( )( \( ) /__\ ( \( )(_ _) Greetings to family
)( )__) ) ( ) ( /(__)\ ) ( )( friends & neighbours
(__) (____)(_)\_)(_)\_)(__)(__)(_)\_) (__) @argonet.co.uk & MCR
Tennant Stuart
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
> Tennant Stuart wrote:
>> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>>> As far as I have been able to tell the day is _only_ referenced as
>>> Sir Nicholas' "five hundredth deathday" - the period 500 years is
>>> never mentioned, nor is it mentioned how those 500 deathdays should
>>> be counted.
>>> So even if we accept the evidence in CoS - disregarding his comment
>>> in PS about 'nearly four hundred years - it is - IMO - not possible
>>> to pinpoint the year with complete certainty (evidence in QttA very
>>> strongly suggests that 1991 is the earliest possible year for CoS to
>>> start, but that doesn't help here).
>> Troels, I'm hoping you'll understand something which Jonathan won't...
>> Sir Nicholas was probably lying about his five hundredth deathday, and
>> it probably was more like 400; but it does not matter for the purposes
>> of our calculation, since the claimed date PLUS the claimed length of
>> time will still give the year that the claim was made, which is 1992.
> But haven't you seen my rather ingenious (I'm quite proud of it.
> argument that we don't know if the length from the claimed date was 499,
> 500 or 501 years. (499 years is if October 31, 1492 is counted as well,
> 500 is as per normal Muggle anniversary counting, 501 is if October 31
> was one of the dates that disappeared when the wizarding community when
> over to the Gregorian calendar AND this caused the ghosts to not count
> that year ;-)
It would be calculated in the same way as a 500th birthday cake.
> You are of course right that if Sir Nicholas was lying, then he would
> make sure that the calculations gave the number he wanted from the
> date on the cake. I didn't think of that (ok - I could get perfidious
> and claim that Sir Nicholas may have made an error in his calculations,
> but that would be going over the top, wouldn't it ;-).
Well, the house elves would have iced the cake, so they'll have made
the calculation, on the same basis as birthday cakes (they are making
hundreds per year); so they simply deducted 500 from the current year.
> Actually I have no problem using 1992 as the most probable, but I
> think Jonathan is right in saying that we can't be 100% sure as this
> dating is not internally consistent (the weekday & date problem).
> You know I'm quite particular to stating not quite certain derivations
> as such ;-)
I agree that we can't be 100% sure, but what Jonathan wants to do is
use the weekday/date system, which we do know for sure is useless.
Tennant Stuart
Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
> Richard Eney wrote:
>> Quite some time ago someone else analyzed those day-dates
I'd love to see that analysis.
> and reported that JKR seems to have set HP#1 in 1990-1991, then shifted
> with HP#2 to 1992-1993 (probably so she could use 1492). JKR then stayed
> with that same 1992-1993 calendar for HP#3 (in which,I believe it was
> said, the full moons happen at the right time in the story for that
> calendar year). She used it again for HP#4, which is why Halloween is
> always on Saturday.
Very good Tamar!
> All in all, it would seem to me that it is overwhelmingly
> probable that CoS is set in either 1991-92 or 1992-93 -
> the exact dating being impossible, but (if you ask me) also
> uninteresting (making up the theories is fun, though ;-)
When talking about the series as a whole, it's convenient to have
absolute dates to pin everything to, rather than relative dates.
>> Still, I do wonder about NHN. He might just be ignoring the calendar
>> change, but the four or five hundred year problem sounds like a
>> deliberate lie. I wouldn't wonder - that old rascal ...
I'm quite sure he did lie, but fortunately for us, his lies cancel out.
Tennant Stuart
dscve...@aol.complex (Michelle Smith) wrote:
>> Voldemort regained his full strength in June of 1995. What horrific
>> events were occurring at that time that Voldemort might contribute to?
>> IIRC, there were massacres in Rwanda and Bosnia at around that time.
> The Oklahoma City bombing, but that was in the US.
> 1996: Mad Cow Disease
> 1997: Death of Princess Diana (I'm getting this list from CNN, stop
> throwing things at me), anarchy and riots in Albania, Voldy's former
> hideout.
> I don't see any huge disasters in the UK during that time.
Don't forget that JKR worked out her plotting in 1991 & 1992, so
the real-world events of 1995 onwards were in the future for her.
Tennant Stuart
doug
You know.. this whole figuring out how old NHN's birthday is beginning
to get irrelevant, and redundant..
--
AIM: dnphoenix79
Yahoo: dougmailmke
MSN: dnphoenix79
ICQ: 165056853
Michelle Smith
>know Sirius is a star also known as the dog star?
My kid's known that since she was four.
>How many know
>that Lupin is Latin for wolf
Since she was three - we lived near Lupine Hills, and the Lupine flower that
grows all over is, according to local Native American tribal legend, taken
from the wolf's tail that a tricky rabbit talked him out of.
> or that Remius is the name of one of
>the twins that founded Rome and was raised by a wolf?
It's in the foreward of the Uncle Remus Stories that I read to her as a tot.
>How many
>get the connection with a three headed dog purchased from a Greek
>chappy?
She knew about Cerebus, and loves her toy Fluffy, and wishes she had a real one
(Me: "that would be hard to take care of, Alice." Alice: "At least it doesn't
have three butts!")
>How many know Flamel is real?
She was surprised to learn that. She's eight, though.
>How many know that Aggripa
>is real?
We haven't gotten to Agrippa yet - they don't usually study that part til sixth
grade, or 11/12 years.
>How many know the about the background of Mandrakes?
She knows that, and that with the actual legend, you must tie a black string to
a white dog and have the dog pull out the root so that the cry will not kill
anyone (apparently, dogs are immune to them).
>The point is that most children
>just don't know this stuff.
>
Maybe you just don't know any educated children.
Kal Alexander
> Kal Alexander wrote:
> >
> > "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
> >>
> >> And the relevance is?
> >
> > The relevance is this: If JKR had woven this theme into the
> > storyline because it would be important later on, then there
> > would be an answer to decypher. If, as I suspect, it is here
> > because she just didn't bother to check details on a minor
> > point, or because of editorial errors, then there isn't a
> > solution.
>
> Sorry, I probably misunderstood you (I was a little upset by
> the 'only an idiot would argue otherwise' comment, which - IMO -
> came dangerously close to 'only an idiot would disagree with me',
> though re-reading I see that you were referring only to the
> actual math, not, apparently, to arguments over the numbers).
Sorry about that. Sometimes I try to be brief, and in the process lose some
of my meaning.
>
> You were apparently referring to the futility of trying to
> decipher the authorial intention if no such intention is present,
> while I was referring to the analysis itself as an intellectual
> exercise based on a fiction I love - two very different concepts.
The only analysis I feel is baseless is the 1991-1993 question. To argue
that narrow range implies the comment of 'nearly 400 years' has been
discarded, in which case the written numbers given leave very little debate.
I feel the 400 or 500 year question to be more interesting to analyze, and
has inspired some very interesting points.
>
> I am not sure that I agree on the general principle about the
> depth (obscurity even ;-) with which JKR's intention is 'hidden',
> as the books IMO are written on many levels (I don't care if
> she's writing for kids, for herself or for me ;-) where some
> of the information requires some careful analysis to unveil.
> This may or may not be the case with this particular question,
> but a proper analysis of the possibilities is still - IMO - a
> worthy pursuit in itself (I actually believe that the question
> about the period is left deliberately ambiguous - at least from
> book 3 forwards, but probably in all the books).
>
> --
> Troels Forchhammer
Research for research's sake. A very noble quest indeed, not to mention
good practice. I doubt the younger readers are getting involved to this
degree, but it would be beneficial if they did. Teaches some valuable life
skills. Again, it is the depth of that research that I take to task. But
the immortal acronym, IMO (which is also a brand of butter, I believe) rules
the day here. I personally find the century discrepancy to be more
interesting.
Later
Kal