Sassley
Member
You're under arrest for mopery with intent to creep.[Mo0:0]
Posts: 646
|
Post by Sassley on Nov 16, 2010 15:40:51 GMT -8
What I want to know is how Snape got the last page of the letter and the half of the photo with Lily on it. That's much easier, he robbed it while he was at a meeting of the Order of the Phoenix. That's what I thought, but then the question still remains: how did he know where it was? And why/how would Sirius have kept it there?
|
|
limelightqueen
Persistent Member
You know how to whistle, don't you?[Mo0:0]
Posts: 2,741
|
Post by limelightqueen on Nov 19, 2010 22:54:53 GMT -8
Sirius kept it there because throughout the fifth book he was living there. Makes sense that he'd keep the things that are most important to him there.
I am disinclined to think he had the letter in Azkaban and I'm sure he didn't have the picture. It was a picture of Harry, I think that having some visual remembrance of his godson (who looks so much like James) would have worked as a better tool for keeping him sane than knowing he was innocent. Because then he'd have a reason to get out looking at him every day. Sirius was too smart to believe Voldemort was gone forever. He'd want to get out and protect Harry. And so, if he had it it'd be weird that he didn't mention it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2010 23:13:00 GMT -8
And not only was it a picture of harry, it was picture of James and Lily too, though I don't know how close he was to Lily.
|
|
Sassley
Member
You're under arrest for mopery with intent to creep.[Mo0:0]
Posts: 646
|
Post by Sassley on Nov 20, 2010 5:57:52 GMT -8
I'm actually reading the last book now, and Sirius's room (as well as basically the WHOLE house) has been ransacked since the last visit. So it looks as though Snape did come back and turn the house upside-down, looking for something. There we go. No plot gap there - he came to the house, found the letter and the picture, and took what he wanted of both of them.
|
|
|
Post by Corporal Flashback on Nov 20, 2010 6:02:22 GMT -8
So wait, was he living there between him leaving Hogwarts and going to Azkaban? I was never sure about that.
|
|
Sassley
Member
You're under arrest for mopery with intent to creep.[Mo0:0]
Posts: 646
|
Post by Sassley on Nov 20, 2010 6:05:23 GMT -8
This DOES however, bring up another point - when did Snape go back to the house? There were curses designed specifically to keep him from entering. If he could enter, then how are Harry, Ron, and Hermione safe while there? It is actually mentioned in the book that Dumbledore was Secret-Keeper of 12 Grimmauld Place. He told several people (all members of the Order, including Snape) where the headquarters were, therefore they were entrusted with the secret. Once Dumbledore dies, those people could go to ANYONE and tell them about it. But since Snape was the one who (to their minds) betrayed everyone and killed Dumbledore, it was HIM they had to protect the headquarters against.
If he was able to get past the curses, and it looks as if he was, then 12 Grimmauld Place is NOT a safe place for HRH to be, because Snape could have told Death Eaters/Voldemort where the headquarters was, and they could be watching the house, and they would be able to enter. Yet they stay there for several days, maybe even weeks, while they move in and out to spy on the Ministry.
Unless of course Snape never told anyone that he was going to try and get into 12 Grimmauld Place. If that's the case, there's a good chance he never had to tell anyone he was ever going in...since he was on Harry's side the entire time.
|
|
Sassley
Member
You're under arrest for mopery with intent to creep.[Mo0:0]
Posts: 646
|
Post by Sassley on Nov 20, 2010 6:08:34 GMT -8
So wait, was he living there between him leaving Hogwarts and going to Azkaban? I was never sure about that. I see what you mean. That's a good question. That letter was written BEFORE he went to Azkaban. So where was it before then? We all know he hated his entire family, so why would he go there during the time when he was revolting against everything his family believed in? They were on completely different sides. It doesn't make sense that he would be there. So where was this letter hidden in the thirteen years that he was in prison?
|
|
|
Post by Too Funk to Druck{Truthiness} on Nov 20, 2010 8:25:08 GMT -8
This DOES however, bring up another point - when did Snape go back to the house? There were curses designed specifically to keep him from entering. If he could enter, then how are Harry, Ron, and Hermione safe while there? It is actually mentioned in the book that Dumbledore was Secret-Keeper of 12 Grimmauld Place. He told several people (all members of the Order, including Snape) where the headquarters were, therefore they were entrusted with the secret. Once Dumbledore dies, those people could go to ANYONE and tell them about it. But since Snape was the one who (to their minds) betrayed everyone and killed Dumbledore, it was HIM they had to protect the headquarters against.
If he was able to get past the curses, and it looks as if he was, then 12 Grimmauld Place is NOT a safe place for HRH to be, because Snape could have told Death Eaters/Voldemort where the headquarters was, and they could be watching the house, and they would be able to enter. Yet they stay there for several days, maybe even weeks, while they move in and out to spy on the Ministry.
Unless of course Snape never told anyone that he was going to try and get into 12 Grimmauld Place. If that's the case, there's a good chance he never had to tell anyone he was ever going in...since he was on Harry's side the entire time.
He could've went between the end of book five and the end of book six when there wouldn't be any anti-Snape charms on the house.
|
|
|
Post by Corporal Flashback on Nov 20, 2010 8:44:23 GMT -8
^ Malfoy wasn't a prefect, he was in the Inquisitorial Squad.
|
|
|
Post by Corporal Flashback on Nov 20, 2010 8:49:45 GMT -8
Oh yeah, I totally forgot about that. I guess it's for plot reasons, we don't know any other male Slytherins in that year apart from Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle, do we, and those two are hopeless.
|
|
|
Post by Anya the Purple on Nov 20, 2010 12:06:12 GMT -8
Well, here's one that's been bugging me: In book 1, Hagrid says that Lily and James were "Head Boy and Girl at Hogwarts in their day," but in book 5, we found out that James wasn't even a prefect, Lupin was. And I'm pretty sure you've gotta be a Prefect before you can be Head Boy. And anyway, nobody in their right mind WOULD make James Head Boy because he's such a troublemaker. Well it's also possible that you don't have to be a Prefect to be Head Boy/Head Girl. That'd clear up that plothole. Plus we've seen other characters that are trouble makers be made prefects ((Ron, Draco, etc.)) so why not do the same for Head Boy/Head Girl?
Because you have to have one male and one female prefect per House per year, and the Marauders were the only male Gryffindors in their year. There's only one male and one female Head Student per year, and House doesn't matter. With prefects they had no choice but a Marauder (and even then, they didn't choose James), but with Head Boy they had a whole year's worth of suck-ups to take into consideration. A track record like James' could never earn him Head Boy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2010 21:07:19 GMT -8
James being Head Boy: It's never specifically stated that you have to be a prefect to be a Head. I think prefects generally have an advantage because they've already proven themselves to be responsible and whatnot, but if there's another student who would do a good job, I don't think they would be excluded simply because they weren't a prefect. We know James was a troublemaker, but he obviously was a good person deep down. Dumbledore was the one who appointed him, and Dumbledore was notorious for believing in second chances. He probably thought that giving James the position would help him clean up his act. And it sounds like it worked pretty well, because he and Lily started dating in seventh year when they were Heads together.
Sirius's things at Grimmauld Place: When Sirius was sent to Azkaban, his mother was his closest living family member. The Black Family Tree says his dad died in '79 and we know Regulus was dead by '81. His mother didn't pass until '85. I always assumed that the Ministry would have cleaned out his flat or where ever he was living and sent his belongings to his next of kin. I don't really know how that situation would be handled, and I can't explain why Walburga didn't just burn his things, but it would explain how they got there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2010 21:24:08 GMT -8
SassleyMost of your confusion wll be cleared up when you finish reading.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2010 7:00:00 GMT -8
This DOES however, bring up another point - when did Snape go back to the house? There were curses designed specifically to keep him from entering. If he could enter, then how are Harry, Ron, and Hermione safe while there? It is actually mentioned in the book that Dumbledore was Secret-Keeper of 12 Grimmauld Place. He told several people (all members of the Order, including Snape) where the headquarters were, therefore they were entrusted with the secret. Once Dumbledore dies, those people could go to ANYONE and tell them about it. But since Snape was the one who (to their minds) betrayed everyone and killed Dumbledore, it was HIM they had to protect the headquarters against.
If he was able to get past the curses, and it looks as if he was, then 12 Grimmauld Place is NOT a safe place for HRH to be, because Snape could have told Death Eaters/Voldemort where the headquarters was, and they could be watching the house, and they would be able to enter. Yet they stay there for several days, maybe even weeks, while they move in and out to spy on the Ministry.
Unless of course Snape never told anyone that he was going to try and get into 12 Grimmauld Place. If that's the case, there's a good chance he never had to tell anyone he was ever going in...since he was on Harry's side the entire time. Snape could enter Grimmauld Place even with the curses against him because he didn't actually murder Dumbledore and he never actually betrayed the Order. Dumbledore's killing was orchestrated between him and Dumbledore himself therefore Snape wasn't a murderer - Albus pleaded for him to kill him. The curses were directed at Dumbledore's murderer, thought to be Snape, since Snape is not guilty of this, the curse probably didn't work on him, just like it didn't work on Harry and company. He probably just said "I didn't kill you" to Dumbledore's spectrum like Harry and Lupin did and it just vanished like afterwards. At least that's what I concluded when I thought about it also.
|
|
|
Post by Anya the Purple on Nov 26, 2010 15:43:59 GMT -8
This isn't really a contradiction, just a question: Why did the ring carry a curse so you couldn't even put it on, but the locket didn't?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2010 8:33:53 GMT -8
I was re-reading the 2nd book when I stumbled into this: “Wish I knew what he was up to,” said Fred, frowning. “He’s not himself. His exam results came the day before you did; twelve O.W.L.s and he hardly gloated at all.” “Ordinary Wizarding Levels,” George explained, seeing Harry’s puzzled look. “Bill got twelve, too. If we’re not careful, we’ll have another Head Boy in the family. I don’t think I could stand the shame.”
So, regarding the whole James issue, about him being Head Boy but not a Prefect, maybe it depends more on your grades than it does on you previously being a Prefect? I know James was a troublemaker, but he had great skills and grades didn't he? What, with him and Sirius being animagus and all. Besides, I remember J. K. Rowling saying that the reason Lily started to like James was because he really improved on his behaviour in his 6th/7th year, I think. So maybe his good grades + his improved behaviour = Head Boy.
|
|
|
Post by Anya the Purple on Nov 27, 2010 8:47:43 GMT -8
^ possibly... I still don't see James as Head Boy though... but maybe that's just me, cuz I hate James. XD
|
|
|
Post by thewizardofoz on Nov 28, 2010 11:10:52 GMT -8
^ possibly... I still don't see James as Head Boy though... but maybe that's just me, cuz I hate James. XD Yeah, that does make sense. XD Well, to be fair, the locket did prevent Harry from retreiving the Gryffindor Sword until he refuted the curse, and also gave Harry, Ron, and Hermione all sorts of nasty carry-ons once they wore it so they could disbelieve their own minds, turn on themselves, and generally no longer be a threat. Of course it didn't work since they were far too smart for childish playground rivalry games, but still. Odd. Honestly, though, there's a lovely little word for "charms" like this: Plot Errors. There's no use explaining them, for they will cause headaches and confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Elentari on Nov 28, 2010 12:16:33 GMT -8
Sirius's things at Grimmauld Place: When Sirius was sent to Azkaban, his mother was his closest living family member. The Black Family Tree says his dad died in '79 and we know Regulus was dead by '81. His mother didn't pass until '85. I always assumed that the Ministry would have cleaned out his flat or where ever he was living and sent his belongings to his next of kin. I don't really know how that situation would be handled, and I can't explain why Walburga didn't just burn his things, but it would explain how they got there. Wasn't it commonly believed that he was actually Voldmort's secret agent? Maybe Walburga thought that Sirius was changing his ways and trying to get back to the family so she spared his belongings. Or maybe she just didn't want to even touch Sirius' stuff so she put it all away and tried to forget all about it. I don't know - it's been a while since I read the books, so I could be wrong.
|
|
TheKlaineMobile
Member
They can't touch us or what we have[Mo0:10]
Posts: 975
|
Post by TheKlaineMobile on Dec 2, 2010 7:08:27 GMT -8
I have one...
Harry stabbed the diary, which is a horcrux, with the Basalisk fang. The horcrux was destroyed in a matter of seconds. But, Harry was bitten by the Basalisk, Harry is also a horcrux. Why wasn't the horcrux inside Harry destroyed but the diary was?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2010 10:17:33 GMT -8
I have one... Harry stabbed the diary, which is a horcrux, with the Basalisk fang. The horcrux was destroyed in a matter of seconds. But, Harry was bitten by the Basalisk, Harry is also a horcrux. Why wasn't the horcrux inside Harry destroyed but the diary was? Hmm .. Good point. I'm not sure, but I think it's because Harry didn't die that time. I think the horcrux in Harry was destroyed by Voldemort because Harry actually died (pseudo-died, I guess) and because he delivered himself to Voldemort unarmed and as a sacrifice, he wasn't actually killed? I dunno. Feel free to correct me. The reason why Harry was allowed to come back to life, while his mother wasn't, is still a bit confusing to me.
|
|
|
Post by serenadeofhatred on Dec 2, 2010 17:04:35 GMT -8
^ Wasn't that because What Voldemort actually killed was his own horcrux?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2010 17:10:33 GMT -8
I thought that Voldemort himself had to destroy the horcrux, so basilisk venom wouldn't work on him.
|
|
|
Post by Anya the Purple on Dec 2, 2010 20:56:41 GMT -8
I have one... Harry stabbed the diary, which is a horcrux, with the Basalisk fang. The horcrux was destroyed in a matter of seconds. But, Harry was bitten by the Basalisk, Harry is also a horcrux. Why wasn't the horcrux inside Harry destroyed but the diary was?
I'm pretty sure it was the phoenix tears. If you'll remember what Hermione says in DH, a Horcrux has to be destroyed beyond magical repair. Then she says that phoenix tears are the only thing that can kill a basilisk wound, implying that if a phoenix happened to cry on any Horcrux that had basilisk venom in it that hadn't died yet, the Horcrux wouldn't be destroyed.
|
|
TheKlaineMobile
Member
They can't touch us or what we have[Mo0:10]
Posts: 975
|
Post by TheKlaineMobile on Dec 3, 2010 8:58:31 GMT -8
I have one... Harry stabbed the diary, which is a horcrux, with the Basalisk fang. The horcrux was destroyed in a matter of seconds. But, Harry was bitten by the Basalisk, Harry is also a horcrux. Why wasn't the horcrux inside Harry destroyed but the diary was?
I'm pretty sure it was the phoenix tears. If you'll remember what Hermione says in DH, a Horcrux has to be destroyed beyond magical repair. Then she says that phoenix tears are the only thing that can kill a basilisk wound, implying that if a phoenix happened to cry on any Horcrux that had basilisk venom in it that hadn't died yet, the Horcrux wouldn't be destroyed.Hmm...I thought that might have been it. But didn't Harry get bitten by the Basalisk first? The diary was destroyed in seconds, why didn't Harry "die"...maybe it's because the diary is smaller...IDK, maybe JKR hadn't thought of Harry being a Horcrux yet. :/
|
|
|
Post by serenadeofhatred on Dec 3, 2010 20:41:03 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure it was the phoenix tears. If you'll remember what Hermione says in DH, a Horcrux has to be destroyed beyond magical repair. Then she says that phoenix tears are the only thing that can kill a basilisk wound, implying that if a phoenix happened to cry on any Horcrux that had basilisk venom in it that hadn't died yet, the Horcrux wouldn't be destroyed.Hmm...I thought that might have been it. But didn't Harry get bitten by the Basalisk first? The diary was destroyed in seconds, why didn't Harry "die"...maybe it's because the diary is smaller...IDK, maybe JKR hadn't thought of Harry being a Horcrux yet. :/ Haha, no. She's J.K. Freaking Rowling. She planned out the entire
series
Saga before she even wrote the first book. Something that big? Yeah, she was certainly planning it.
|
|
limelightqueen
Persistent Member
You know how to whistle, don't you?[Mo0:0]
Posts: 2,741
|
Post by limelightqueen on Dec 21, 2010 9:42:15 GMT -8
I'm going with the "beyond magical repair." Phoenix tears are a magical repairing property. Death however has been stated over and over again as being irreparable by magic. Ghosts are just imprints of the soul and can't be touched. The echoes from Prior Incantum and the similar beings brought from the resurrection stone are also only imprints and temporary. Inferi are physical beings but have no similarities aside from looks of the person they were as they are merely terrifying zombie puppets.
I think Harry would have had to die in order for the basilisk venom to kill the horcrux in him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2010 13:14:40 GMT -8
^Yeah. Harry took longer to die because he was an actual person.
|
|
|
Post by Anya the Purple on Dec 24, 2010 13:44:50 GMT -8
Would it count as a plothole that nobody realized that a guy named REMUS LUPIN is a werewolf? XD
|
|
|
Post by Lovely Kiss on Dec 27, 2010 0:01:50 GMT -8
How about the whole Fidelius Charm? I don't get it, WHY didn't James or Lily just be there own secret keeper? In the seventh book it is revealed that Bill is his own Secret-Keeper. "... The Death Eater's know Ron's with you now, they're bound to target the family" ... "How are they protected?" asked Harry. "Fidelius Charm. Dad's Secret-Keeper. And we've done it on this cottage too; I'm Secret-Keeper here." (DH 482/390) Um, so why didn't James become his own keeper again? It's not like he'd rat out his own family. I mean he could have easily told Sirius and according to the charm, the person who was told the secret cannot pass it to anyone else. Also, I read this article, and I do believe the whole charm is one big flaw anyways. www.beyondhogwarts.com/harry-potter/articles/the-secrets-of-the-fidelius-charm.html
|
|