Search Beyond Hogwarts:

Reference Desk:
•	Beyond Hogwarts FAQ
•	Wizard to Muggle Currency Converter
•	Harry Potter Spelling Reference

Pages:  <<  <  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ...  >  >>

Reader Comments: (Page 19)

The Hallows are probably not, for the four of them, the Hallows of Ireland. In ancient wizardry, the most significant set of objects was a wand, a cup, a sword and a small stone (pentacle). From celtic legends, the cauldron was replaced by a cup, the spear by a wand, the big stone of destiny by a smaller one.

JKR loves harmony. There are four Horcruxes to be found (she said it). They come from each of the four founders (a guess). One is a cup (obviously Hufflepuff), one is a sword, one is a wand (probably Ravenclaw, which explains why Ollivander leaved), one is a stone (most probably inside Slytherin locket). Harry has to gather them. Together, they help him produce great magic.

One clue to find them might be the nonsense words Dumbledore used in PS/SS: nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak. Although all of these words could refer to Dudley (he clearly is a nitwit, full of blubber, leaves his oddments to Harry and loves tweaking him), I think they refer to four persons:
The nitwit could be Crabbe, Goyle, or... Pettigrew
The blubber obviously refers to fat Slughorn
The oddment could refer to Abelforth's behaviour
The tweak could be the gesture you make with a wand: it would refer to Ollivander

Wouldn't Slughorn have stolen Hufflepuff cup? He loves precious things and that would explain why he is so frightened, trying to hide himself from Voldemort - and even Dumbledore.

Posted by herve from strasbourg on February 12, 2007 12:22 AM

Interesting herve!

Have never given those words much thought before.

I have an alternative list.

Nitwit = Dunce = (sadly) Neville, does he have Ravenclaw's wand?
Blubber = Cry = Moaning Myrtle, back to the CoS
Oddment = a mixture = the room of requirement.
Tweak = give pain = Harry's scar.

Posted by Orlando from England on February 12, 2007 3:18 PM

Allow me to add to your listings:

Nitwit: a nit is the egg of the louse and to cure lice in olden times one would have to painstakingly pick off every single egg from the scalp of another, hence the term nitpicker! Dumbledore stated that Voldemort missed the smaller details of how things worked like two wands with cores from the same magical creature canceling out each other's spells.

Blubber: a type of fat and to whimper and cry -- obviously Neville

Oddment: both the genus of the Water Lilly and the Water Nymph, an insect (I know why, if interested just ask) This word links the Voldemort-slain Lily with Nymphadora Tronx. The indicator of doom for her I fear. Also an oddment is a single part of a set of things, usually a left-over part at that -- a Horcrux

Tweak: this is a small change made to fine tune and improve a situation. It is an action commonly done to a nose to annoy someone. Neville was spell-less when his nose was broken and he couldn't enunciate. Pity that the current incarnation of the dark Lord is largely noseless. Belatrix perhaps?

Posted by ken from la ca usa ea(rth) on February 13, 2007 8:04 PM

I think all the talk on this nitwit, blubber, oddment and tweak is suggestive; JKR makes it sound unimportant, a throwaway use of words... to help us forget them. And Harry replays them after Dumbledore's in the 6th.

Are there any more of these throwaway phrases in the books? YES! in the first: (PS/SS) 'A single wand lay on a dusty purple cushion in the window.' This wand lay in Ollivanders shop, perhaps it links to his disappearance? Perhaps Neville got this wand before Ollivander disappeared? 'Unicorn and cherry hair' he said: what if this is Ravenclaws old 'pole of combat' as listed as one of the irish hallows?

Posted by Joanna Crabtree from St Albans, S/E England on February 15, 2007 04:50 AM

i really like the theory of yours, joanna

who's to say that the wand wasn't ravenclaw's... maybe ollivander knew that he would be hunted for and gave the wand to the last customer- neville... he definitely knew that the wand was ravenclaw's because he said in ss/ps, "i remember every wand i have sold", and naturally since ollivanders was opened in 386 BC then he surely would have given a wand to rowena ravnclaw?

couldn't he? he definitely could... well i am going to wait for the book..

i am just waiting for OOTP and DH!

Posted by sumeetha from dubai on February 16, 2007 12:36 AM

Maybe the nitwit, blubber, oddment and tweak mean 4 people:

- Nitwit (idiot), Lucius/Naricssa/Draco Malfoy, Peter Pettigrew, Vincent Crabbe, Gregory Goyle
- Blubber (crying, or a type of fat), Neville
- Oddment (mixed up, a mixture), Snape
- Tweak (to change and improve something), Perhaps Malfoy?

Posted by Joanna Crabtree from St Albans, S/E England on February 16, 2007 05:25 AM

ly hallows related to Godric hollow? I think that harry in the same place, on the same bed, where his parents d or where he got that scar... He'll realise that he's the last horcrux and himself and voldemort both... And the'll have a ly battle... Into the ly hallows!

Posted by Apoorva from Delhi, India on February 17, 2007 07:36 AM

To Orlando, Jan.30th... You asked if broken wands still work...remember the disastrous results Ron got with his when it broke banging the steering wheel of the flying car?

Posted by Dee from Somewhere south of NY on February 17, 2007 4:19 PM

"Or is there the usual simple explanation involving a reversal of time, a man coming back to life, and a couple of invisible dementors?" (Fudge, OotP)

When I read this at first, I felt as if Fudge was trying to make Dumbledore look foolish. His remark was sarcastic.

But I read it again, and it looks more as if Fudge was really angry, because he thouroughly thought that Dumbledore was fouling him.

Then, the "usual simple explanation" probably refers to something Dumbledore told him. Of course, we can imagine we already saw that: time reversal in PoA, invisible dementors in PoA (at least for Dudley and Mrs Figgs) and a man coming back from in GoF (Voldemort), but it doesn't fit well: dementors weren't invisible for Harry, Dumbledore certainly didn't mention the using of time-turner in PoA, and Voldemort wasn't a man, but a wandering soul without a body.

SO, if we haven't seen that before, it has to be a part of book 7. Dumbledore explained it to Fudge prior to OotP, because he already lived it (in book 7) and came back to the past. But Fudge thought it was red herring, misleading.

I think the couple of invisible dementors could be very useful, if they kissed at the same time Voldemort's soul from inside Voldemort's body and Voldemort's soul from Harry's scar.

Time reversal would be the way for Dumbledore to go back to the past (book 1).

Now, for a man coming back to life, I have no idea: Voldemort, once he is , coming back again to life? Sirius coming back (he d in a weird way: his body went entirely through the veil, not only his soul, so that maybe his soul is still inside his body, but encaged beyond the veil)?

Posted by herve from strasbourg on February 19, 2007 12:57 PM

I've been reading COS and two sentences stand out in my mind. "I only truly have left this school when none here are loyal to me...Help always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it. " To me, that says, although Dumbledore may be truly , he lives on in pictures, memories, etc, until the last student loyal to him leaves. He also said help would always be given to those who ask for it...which, to me, means, if the final battle DOES take place at Hogwarts, then Harry be able to find all the help he needs, because I suspect three of the founders are buried somewhere under the school. Slytherin isn't...and wouldn't be giving any help anyway because Harry's not a completely full-blooded wizard...his mother's parents were muggles. So, I've said all that, to say this...I believe the final show-down, between Harry and Voldemort, WILL take place at Hogwarts. Both of them be battling, not only for supremacy, but for the only real "home" either have known. IF Voldemort should win (and I don't think he ), I can't picture anyone, not full-blooded wizards or witches, being allowed. Besides, Voldemort represents evil and evil is usually vanquished...though not fully destroyed...and never be. There always be a fight, against good and evil! Even if Voldemort is totally destroyed, someday, another, perhaps more evil, take his place and the battle begin again. Such is life...a neverending struggle.

Posted by Dee from Somewhere south of NY on February 19, 2007 1:16 PM

To Herve...I like the idea about Dumbledore coming back with the aid of a time turner. I'm sure it's possible to program it, (like the car in Back to The Future), so he could come back any time he chose. I especially like the invisible Dementors kiss...although, if they actually gave the kiss to Harry, wouldn't he lose his soul? Not to mention his scar? Just a thought.

Posted by Dee from Somewhere south of NY on February 19, 2007 1:21 PM

To Dee from somewhere..

You were talking about broken wands and about Ron disasterous results with his when it broke in CoS. Hagrid's wand got snapped aswell, remember? And he still has it. When Hagrid's got snapped in half, it seems to us that he is still using it inside his smouldering pink umbrella, mentioned in PS and HBP. Perhaps wands still work depending on how they break. For example, when Ron's is broken, it: 'Snaps, almost in two; the end was held on by a few splinters.' It doesn't do any of the spells he wants it to do and emits odd sparks. However, Hagrid's was purposefully snapped in order for him to stop using magic after being expelled. We know Hagrid's wand is in good enough condition to do magic because in the first book, he speeds up a boat to take him and Harry back to shore, makes a tail on Dudley's bottom and lights a fire in the boat where Harry and Dudley were sleeping. Also, in the 6th book, him and Harry use the AGUAMENTI charm to put out his house after the Eaters had set fire to it (at least, I think it was a Eater, but I don't have the book, but it isn't really relevant anyway...)

In one sentence, Ron's wand doesn't do anything except malfunction and Hagrid's seems usuable enough to do good and basic magic. As I said, it may be the way their broken, but it could be how much was broken, what they've got inside them (wand cores) and the user.

Posted by Joanna Crabtree from St Albans, S/E England on February 19, 2007 1:35 PM

Pages:  <<  <  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ...  >  >>