If I may butt in: "ignotus" actually means "the unknown", i.e. someone whose name you don't know. I took that as a sign that the youngest brother already was a self-effacing character even before he got hold of the cloak - which somehow in Rowling's head is supposed to be a good idea. Which in itself would have been debatable on an ethical level, but not necessarily wrong: there is a whole school of self-effacing ideology, based on the Christian idea of humility going for it, after all, and I suspect strongly that's where she got the idea in the first place. But how is that supposed to tie in with the general theme of glory and grand gestures being typical Gryffindor and Gryffindor being the "good house"? Once again, double messages, thy name is Rowling...
Forgot about runes. I still can easily imagine him not reading it even had it been written in English.
Have never studied Latin. "Ignotus" didn't appear on sites about names I found (other 2 names did), so I thought may be "Ignatius" was his real name. I started believing in it after finding how positively Harry's ancestor's name was described in contrast with the other 2.
May be the wand didn't even recognize Voldemort as a full human being, but as some strange creature, and that's why didn't cooperate? We have heard about wizards prohibiting other magical creatures from caring wands, so we know not only wizards can wield one. I don't want to say the wand supposed V to be a goblin or something, but that it felt a powerful source of magical energy, which didn't fall under any known to it definitions (such as a human, a goblin, etc).
Are those talks on Internet? Swythyv's lj? Your site? They sound interesting. Does that bit appear in one of your essays?
Oh, I can imaging him not reading it if it was in English too. This is a problem throughout the whole series. Rowling claims to have been an avid reader as a child, herself (although she adamantly refuses to admit having ever read any of the works of children's fantasy that anyone has ever asked might have been influences) and I think assumes that everyone will just understand that Harry is at least a casual reader. But then she doesn't bother to depict him reading anything but 'Quidditch Through the Ages' and the HBP's marginalia
( ... )
"you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!"
Oh Hermy. Wasn't it you who was talking about ounces of logic long ago?
* I heard a theory about the Wand preferring owners with complete souls and being repulsed by V's splintered one. Had JKR gone that route, we wouldn't need any complicated, confusing and, the most important, boring explanations. And Voldemort would kill himself as the direct result of choosing to split his immortal soul.
But that doesn't work, because killing someone automatically splits your soul.
As for the Peverells, his name is Ignotus, not Ignatius. Ignotus means "unknown", appropriate for an invisible man. Could Antioch (Elder Wand) be a reference to the similarly powerful Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?
*Hermione's "exasperation with Xenophilius" made her forget she was annoyed at Ron. I am sure that's how healthy relationship looks like.Reminds me of this Onion article!: ... )
But that doesn't work, because killing someone automatically splits your soul.
I think the full theory has to do with not only splitting the soul but removing part of it and housing it in a horcrux. The wand won't respond to an incomplete wizard.
Which makes me wonder, going off on a tangent, if the "incomplete wizard" thing might not play into the prejudice against Muggle-borns, who would be "incomplete" in the sense that they have no ancestors in the WW? If this theory, that the wand rejected someone with an incomplete as opposed to split soul had been canon, it would have explained an ignorant but understandable mindset without excusing it.
Yes, that's right. That wand can't possibly have any objections to *damaged* souls. It's a regular facilitator for enabling a wizard to damage his soul. But there's nothing to say that it might not insist that all the pieces remain together.
Actually, that concept of one's magical "completeness" being extended beyond the individual all the way to one's family tree does make a degree of sense. Incommers would be regarded rather as flotsam until they are taken into a magical family. I should expect a certain disdain for orphans as well, even if one knows their family connections.
We didn't see any queuing up to adopt displaced House Elves in the Ministry on any of our visits there either. Elves evidently are supposed to already *have* families.
About the wand's preferences: I should have worded it better. I thought about jodel_from_aol's theory. In the end of DH Voldemort thinks he would feel, had somebody destroyed his soul pieces. He clearly underestimates the amount of damage he inflicted on himself. His soul isn't only splintered - he has lost a connection with most(6/7?) of it at that point. So may be the wand simply didn't recognize him as a human being, but as some strange creature, and didn't cooperate.
Hermione: YOU ALREADY HAVE AN INVISIBILITY CLOAK. And breaking into banks, sneaking into the Ministry with NO PLAN, and fighting Lord Voldemort will bring a lot more trouble onto you.That reminded me of another DH example of worrying about things one shouldn't worry about - Ron being afraid of Hermione being prosecuted because her Blood Status and not due to being Harry's best friend & fighting against Voldemort. It stroke me as very strange since Ron is really worried about it, talks twice about lying in court she was his
( ... )
Ron correctly identifies the moral of the story - "don't go messing around with stuff… just keep your head down, mind your own business and you'll be okay" Has anyone got an idea what the author's opinion on this matter is? When reading the above paragraph, it seemed to me that (a) Ron was meant to be right in his assessment of how wizarding parents told this story to their children and what interpretation they wanted to convey and (b) that the trio (youthful rebels that they are!) thought this to be wrong and (c) we as the audience, together with the author, were meant to think they were right. Meaning: you SHOULD mess with things, do something about things that are not right, fight for your beliefs. Which also was in sync with everything up to OotP (and in parts HBP): founding the order, trying to do something against Voldemort, founding the DA - these were good things. But then, in DH, this principle was turned by 180 degrees into "being passive is the new black!". So????????
Presumably the same reason he feels it now, along
( ... )
Yes, I could accept (c) much easier in OoTF than in DH. But may be I am wrong and the moral is supposed to be: "Fight for your beliefs against the corrupted Ministry & several you-know-which people." & "Remember DD's words about people choosing the worst for them. Don't even dabble in questionable magic, thinking how you'll be the best".
Hmm, when I hear "men leaving emotional stuff to women", it's usually about men loving but not expressing their feelings. And here it's not like Harry cares about Luna and appreciates her expressing that. He's just pleased to be worshiped imo.
Comments 12
Reply
Which in itself would have been debatable on an ethical level, but not necessarily wrong: there is a whole school of self-effacing ideology, based on the Christian idea of humility going for it, after all, and I suspect strongly that's where she got the idea in the first place. But how is that supposed to tie in with the general theme of glory and grand gestures being typical Gryffindor and Gryffindor being the "good house"? Once again, double messages, thy name is Rowling...
Reply
Have never studied Latin. "Ignotus" didn't appear on sites about names I found (other 2 names did), so I thought may be "Ignatius" was his real name. I started believing in it after finding how positively Harry's ancestor's name was described in contrast with the other 2.
May be the wand didn't even recognize Voldemort as a full human being, but as some strange creature, and that's why didn't cooperate? We have heard about wizards prohibiting other magical creatures from caring wands, so we know not only wizards can wield one. I don't want to say the wand supposed V to be a goblin or something, but that it felt a powerful source of magical energy, which didn't fall under any known to it definitions (such as a human, a goblin, etc).
Are those talks on Internet? Swythyv's lj? Your site? They sound interesting. Does that bit appear in one of your essays?
Reply
Reply
Oh Hermy. Wasn't it you who was talking about ounces of logic long ago?
* I heard a theory about the Wand preferring owners with complete souls and being repulsed by V's splintered one. Had JKR gone that route, we wouldn't need any complicated, confusing and, the most important, boring explanations. And Voldemort would kill himself as the direct result of choosing to split his immortal soul.
But that doesn't work, because killing someone automatically splits your soul.
As for the Peverells, his name is Ignotus, not Ignatius. Ignotus means "unknown", appropriate for an invisible man. Could Antioch (Elder Wand) be a reference to the similarly powerful Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?
*Hermione's "exasperation with Xenophilius" made her forget she was annoyed at Ron. I am sure that's how healthy relationship looks like.Reminds me of this Onion article!: ... )
Reply
I think the full theory has to do with not only splitting the soul but removing part of it and housing it in a horcrux. The wand won't respond to an incomplete wizard.
Which makes me wonder, going off on a tangent, if the "incomplete wizard" thing might not play into the prejudice against Muggle-borns, who would be "incomplete" in the sense that they have no ancestors in the WW? If this theory, that the wand rejected someone with an incomplete as opposed to split soul had been canon, it would have explained an ignorant but understandable mindset without excusing it.
Reply
Actually, that concept of one's magical "completeness" being extended beyond the individual all the way to one's family tree does make a degree of sense. Incommers would be regarded rather as flotsam until they are taken into a magical family. I should expect a certain disdain for orphans as well, even if one knows their family connections.
We didn't see any queuing up to adopt displaced House Elves in the Ministry on any of our visits there either. Elves evidently are supposed to already *have* families.
Reply
About the wand's preferences: I should have worded it better. I thought about jodel_from_aol's theory. In the end of DH Voldemort thinks he would feel, had somebody destroyed his soul pieces. He clearly underestimates the amount of damage he inflicted on himself. His soul isn't only splintered - he has lost a connection with most(6/7?) of it at that point. So may be the wand simply didn't recognize him as a human being, but as some strange creature, and didn't cooperate.
Hermione: YOU ALREADY HAVE AN INVISIBILITY CLOAK. And breaking into banks, sneaking into the Ministry with NO PLAN, and fighting Lord Voldemort will bring a lot more trouble onto you.That reminded me of another DH example of worrying about things one shouldn't worry about - Ron being afraid of Hermione being prosecuted because her Blood Status and not due to being Harry's best friend & fighting against Voldemort. It stroke me as very strange since Ron is really worried about it, talks twice about lying in court she was his ( ... )
Reply
Has anyone got an idea what the author's opinion on this matter is? When reading the above paragraph, it seemed to me that (a) Ron was meant to be right in his assessment of how wizarding parents told this story to their children and what interpretation they wanted to convey and
(b) that the trio (youthful rebels that they are!) thought this to be wrong and
(c) we as the audience, together with the author, were meant to think they were right. Meaning: you SHOULD mess with things, do something about things that are not right, fight for your beliefs. Which also was in sync with everything up to OotP (and in parts HBP): founding the order, trying to do something against Voldemort, founding the DA - these were good things. But then, in DH, this principle was turned by 180 degrees into "being passive is the new black!". So????????
Presumably the same reason he feels it now, along ( ... )
Reply
Hmm, when I hear "men leaving emotional stuff to women", it's usually about men loving but not expressing their feelings. And here it's not like Harry cares about Luna and appreciates her expressing that. He's just pleased to be worshiped imo.
Reply
Let's see:
Harry is bored.
There is a book in front of him which he has not read, which was left as a bequest by his beloved mentor. Harry has nothing else to do.
Going by Harry's previous behaviour will he:
a) Take the logical, straightfoward action which will solve his immediate problem?
b) Sit around and reflect on how terrible it is to be The Boy Who Lived?
- Dan Hemmens
Reply
c) Give it to your brainy friend and let her head ache.
Reply
Leave a comment