So after Harry s death the goblins will be coming for his broom? Or will they come for their part in his broom once Randolph Spudmore dies? Why do goblins still make anything for wizards?
Wait, the wizarding world has patents and organized labor concepts like collective strikes? Do the goblins have a union? /snark
As to the Map, I don't particularly care if the activities falling under "up to no good" involve this or that technical form of magic. I'd say the question or whether or not they are intended to harm and humiliate someone is far more important.
I won't even start on the portrait issue. I'm ignoring JKR on that because NOTHING she says makes any sense.
wow.. I haven't been here for a while... anyway... I can totally see Dumbles talking to his portrait. It's so him!
Also, if gobsones is a minority sport how come there even is a National Gobstone Association and why are they based in the Ministry of Magic? Don't they have some better use for that space?
"I can totally see Dumbles talking to his portrait. It's so him! " Given Dumbledore's ego, I wouldn't be surprised if this particular piece of Pottermore information spawns an NC-17 rated fic within 30 days.
Randolph was the first to use goblin-made ironwork (including footrests, stand and twig bands), the secrets of which are not fully understood, but which seem to give the Firebolt additional stability and power in adverse weather conditions
Like thunderstorms? Thanks, I think being on a wooden broom in the sky would be invitation enough to lightning bolts, without adding iron fittings to make it an even more tempting target.
Harry was "among the first to own one" of the more expensive and rare brooms but he's not spoiled, entitled or special at all.
No, of course not. It's not like he asked for it, or demanded it, or any of those other things spoiled, entitled kids do. It was just given to him by a stranger, in the grand tradition of fairy tale heroes and heroines getting magical trinkets to make their quests easier. Of course, they usually get those trinkets because they're good, kind, humble, hard-working, and respectful to others. Let's just ignore that like discrepancy, shall we?
Harry's first broom, the Nimbus, could be read as a reward for standing up to bullying. A reward from the author, that is. McGonagall couldn't care less about bullying, she just wanted Harry for a Seeker. Nevertheless it's satisfying when Harry defends Neville and ends up rewarded even though he broke the no flying rule. It almost seems as if he exists in a moral universe.
But the Firebolt proves that the only morality involved is "Harry deserves all the things because the author says so". Aside from the ridiculousness of a hunted man interrupting his his quest for vengeance to buy his godson new sports equipment, Harry is richer than Sirius. Why can't he buy his own broom?
Because that would make him a showoff, particularly when compared with impoverished Ron. One of Harry's few decent characteristics is that he doesn't rub his wealth in his friends' faces. Well, at least until he wins the Triwizard Tournament and gives his winnings to the twins.
As for Sirius, yes, you're right that it's ridiculous for him to buy his godson a broom when he's on the run and in hiding. I guess that's Rowling's idea of moral ambiguity: He's a bad guy who killed Harry's parents and now wants to kill Harry, but he gave the kid an expensive present--and apparently it's not supposed to kill him. What's up with that? Is it possible he's not really a villain after all?
"Hogwarts portraits are able to talk and move around from picture to picture. They behave like their subjects. However, the degree to which they can interact with the people looking at them depends not on the skill of the painter, but on the power of the witch or wizard painted." Oh, really? So Ariana Dumbledore has the most interactive portrait in existence?
...Hm, I suppose that explains why her portrait actually contains an honest-to-goodness tunnelStill. You'd think that Tom Riddle would have twenty portraits of himself painted, for use in-case-of-Horcrux if nothing else. "If you are seeing this portrait, Bellatrix, please kidnap an Order member, haul your rear to Albania, and cart what you find there back to Little Hangleton for a certain ritual. You'll be rewarded with a nice silver hand afterwards. Get to it
( ... )
"However, neither of these portraits would be capable of having a particularly in-depth discussion about more complex aspects of their lives: they are literally and metaphorically two-dimensional. They are only representations of the living subjects as seen by the artist
( ... )
----Oh, really? So Ariana Dumbledore has the most interactive portrait in existence?
Was Ariana extremely powerful? I thought her magic was just extremely unstable.
----...Hm, I suppose that explains why her portrait actually contains an honest-to-goodness tunnel.
I've always assumed that the magic of the tunnel came from the Room of Requirement
----But a PORTRAIT? Something which is, we learn, nothing more than a storage device, a literal way to store loads of data with a rudimentary magical A.I. attached to prevent information being given to the wrong people, enable adaption to unforeseen situations, and possibly manipulate the weak-willed (if we stretch the "two-dimensionality")?
I strongly suspect that Rowling never gave much thought to the magical theory of portraits while she was writing the books. And I think that she may have written herself into a bit of a corner with portrait magic because it isn't entirely clear from the books how a headmaster's portrait is different from a horcrux.
OK, who made Ariana's portrait in the first place, and why did they do it then? As long as I could have believed portraits simply 'appear' at a person's death I could avoid the question. But Ariana's existence was a big secret. The only people who knew she was alive were her mother, her brothers, Bathilda and Gellert. Which one of them was the artist? And why make a portrait of a child? Especially a mentally ill child, who was not expected to be able to train the portrait? If Ariana had lived to adulthood would her memory still be preserved in her child-aged portrait?
Oh, and if portraits are kept secretly until the subject's death, who knew where to find Dumbly's portrait, so fast after his death? Or did he hang the portrait himself wile still alive, under some invisibility charm that was going to expire with him?
Comments 54
s death the goblins will be coming for his broom? Or will they come for their part in his broom once Randolph Spudmore dies? Why do goblins still make anything for wizards?
Reply
As to the Map, I don't particularly care if the activities falling under "up to no good" involve this or that technical form of magic. I'd say the question or whether or not they are intended to harm and humiliate someone is far more important.
I won't even start on the portrait issue. I'm ignoring JKR on that because NOTHING she says makes any sense.
Reply
JKR's Pottermore comments are no longer canon as far as I'm concerned.
Reply
I can totally see Dumbles talking to his portrait. It's so him!
Also, if gobsones is a minority sport how come there even is a National Gobstone Association and why are they based in the Ministry of Magic? Don't they have some better use for that space?
Reply
Given Dumbledore's ego, I wouldn't be surprised if this particular piece of Pottermore information spawns an NC-17 rated fic within 30 days.
And I now need brain bleach.
Reply
;P
Reply
Like thunderstorms? Thanks, I think being on a wooden broom in the sky would be invitation enough to lightning bolts, without adding iron fittings to make it an even more tempting target.
Harry was "among the first to own one" of the more expensive and rare brooms but he's not spoiled, entitled or special at all.
No, of course not. It's not like he asked for it, or demanded it, or any of those other things spoiled, entitled kids do. It was just given to him by a stranger, in the grand tradition of fairy tale heroes and heroines getting magical trinkets to make their quests easier. Of course, they usually get those trinkets because they're good, kind, humble, hard-working, and respectful to others. Let's just ignore that like discrepancy, shall we?
Reply
But the Firebolt proves that the only morality involved is "Harry deserves all the things because the author says so". Aside from the ridiculousness of a hunted man interrupting his his quest for vengeance to buy his godson new sports equipment, Harry is richer than Sirius. Why can't he buy his own broom?
Reply
As for Sirius, yes, you're right that it's ridiculous for him to buy his godson a broom when he's on the run and in hiding. I guess that's Rowling's idea of moral ambiguity: He's a bad guy who killed Harry's parents and now wants to kill Harry, but he gave the kid an expensive present--and apparently it's not supposed to kill him. What's up with that? Is it possible he's not really a villain after all?
Reply
Oh, really? So Ariana Dumbledore has the most interactive portrait in existence?
...Hm, I suppose that explains why her portrait actually contains an honest-to-goodness tunnelStill. You'd think that Tom Riddle would have twenty portraits of himself painted, for use in-case-of-Horcrux if nothing else. "If you are seeing this portrait, Bellatrix, please kidnap an Order member, haul your rear to Albania, and cart what you find there back to Little Hangleton for a certain ritual. You'll be rewarded with a nice silver hand afterwards. Get to it ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Was Ariana extremely powerful? I thought her magic was just extremely unstable.
----...Hm, I suppose that explains why her portrait actually contains an honest-to-goodness tunnel.
I've always assumed that the magic of the tunnel came from the Room of Requirement
----But a PORTRAIT? Something which is, we learn, nothing more than a storage device, a literal way to store loads of data with a rudimentary magical A.I. attached to prevent information being given to the wrong people, enable adaption to unforeseen situations, and possibly manipulate the weak-willed (if we stretch the "two-dimensionality")?
I strongly suspect that Rowling never gave much thought to the magical theory of portraits while she was writing the books. And I think that she may have written herself into a bit of a corner with portrait magic because it isn't entirely clear from the books how a headmaster's portrait is different from a horcrux.
----I previously supposed that ( ... )
Reply
Oh, and if portraits are kept secretly until the subject's death, who knew where to find Dumbly's portrait, so fast after his death? Or did he hang the portrait himself wile still alive, under some invisibility charm that was going to expire with him?
Reply
Leave a comment