Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Possible glitch in GoF

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Go down

Possible glitch in GoF - Page 2 Empty Possible glitch in GoF

Post  John Bumbledore Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:03 pm

Warty Harris - Aug 22, 2004 7:38 am (#241 of 292)

Jessalynn Quirky---Pettigrew may have thought it wise to not use Voldemort's wand without his permission. Lupin and Sirius also had him cornered and would have done him in if he made an attempt to get any wand from his robes and use it. Pettigrew may not have thought about using a wand either.

Alice I - Aug 24, 2004 10:00 am (#242 of 292)

I just finished reading GOF to my girls. It is clearly stated that the horseless carriages come to pick up the kids to take them to Hogsmead station. Why can't Harry see the Thestrals then? This must be a mistake for he has already witnessed Cedric's death and he can clearly see them a couple of months later in September. No one else dies in the interim so what gives?

Mynn - Aug 24, 2004 11:46 am (#243 of 292)

Alice, I wondered about that to and I don't know the exact number of the post, but it was explained by JKR. Harry hadn't accepted Cedric's death at the end of GOF. It hadn't really hit him (plus, she JKR thought it would be a little much to introduce new creatures at the very end of the book. It would be almost 2 or 3 years before we, the fans, would get an explanation for the thestrals)

JRK said it wasn't a mistake. Hope that helps you. It helped me.

schoff - Aug 24, 2004 12:13 pm (#244 of 292)

From SE Jones: The answer to all your questions can be found on JKR's official site (http://www.jkrowling.com):

JKRowling.com, FAQ page:

FAQ: Why could Harry see the Thestrals in ‘Order of the Phoenix’? Shouldn’t he have been able to see them much earlier, because he saw his parents/Quirrell/Cedric die?

JKR: I’ve been asked this a lot. Harry didn’t see his parents die. He was in his cot at the time (he was just a year old) and, as I say in ‘Philosopher’s Stone’, all he saw was a flash of green light. He didn’t see Quirrell’s death, either. Harry had passed out before Quirrell died and was only told about it by Dumbledore in the last chapter. He did, however, witness the murder of Cedric, and it is this that makes him able to see the Threstrals at last. Why couldn’t he see the Thestrals on his trip back to the train station? Well, I didn’t want to start a new mystery, which would not be resolved for a long time, at the very end of the fourth book. I decided, therefore, that until Harry is over his shock, and really feels what death means (ie, when he fully appreciates that Cedric is gone forever and that he can never come back, which takes time, whatever age you are) he would not be able to see the Thestrals. After two months away from school during which he has dwelled endlessly on his memories of the murder and had nightmares about it, the Thestrals have taken shape and form and he can see them quite clearly.

Whether Harry actually saw Cedric die or not, I am satisfied with the answer that JKR just didn't want to bring up a new mystery at the end of GoF and wanted to wait until OoP instead.

Weeny Owl - Aug 26, 2004 1:48 pm (#245 of 292)

This was posted on The Leaky Cauldron from the HP4U website:

I also asked when Harries [sic] parents were killed by Voldermort, Wormtail turned into a rat and pretended to be dead. How then did he give Voldermort his wand and robe back once he found him and helped give him back his body ?, she told me (after tapping her nose!) 'he hid them'.

wolfgrl - Aug 27, 2004 6:15 am (#246 of 292)

On how Wormtail got the wand, I always thought that he had to be present to show Voldemort where the Potters lived, he could not just tell him. So Peter was already there. So after Voldemort could no longer hold the wand Peter picked it up and saved it for him. Also, I doubt Peter had the natral ability to control the wand to be able to use it himself. He probably tried at some point when the Weasleys were not around to restore his hand and discovered he did not have the ability to control the powerfull wand.

zelmia - Aug 27, 2004 10:00 am (#247 of 292)

Wolfgrl, Peter clearly has the ability to use Voldemort's wand, as he does so on a number of occasions - not the least of which was to kill Cedric Diggory.
I'm not sure what you mean about "restoring his hand" when the Weasleys weren't around. Do you mean to get his finger back? Because he doesn't lose his hand until the "Rebirthing" in the graveyard. Peter was no longer assosciated with the Weasleys at that point. And there seemed to be no reason for him to try to "restore" the finger he had removed before turning into a rat for 12 years.

wolfgrl - Aug 27, 2004 12:38 pm (#248 of 292)

OK, yes he could use it, trained wizards can use most wands, but it may be difficult to control,too powerful for him. (Can you see Neville trying to use Harry's wand?) Most presume that more powerful wands choose more powerful wizards. And I at least do not count Peter as one of those wizards.

Also, I did mean his finger (not his hand), and he would try to restore it while he resided at the Weasleys (or I guess more likely before that) so that it would not look as though he was Peter if he was in human form again. People's appearances change over time he would want to say "I may look somewhat like Peter but I am not, he lost a finger and I have all of mine"

zelmia - Aug 27, 2004 7:55 pm (#249 of 292)

Not to be completely argumentative, but Neville does use Hermione's wand fairly successfully during the Battle at the Ministry after she is incapacitated. In fact we learn that the wand Neville has been using all this time belonged to his dad, a former Auror and presumably a pretty powerful wizard.
Neville's apparent "lack of power" comes, as McGonagall points out, from a lack of confidence on Neville's part and nothing else.
Likewise, Peter uses Voldemort's wand to do the Avada Kedavra on Cedric with no problem whatsoever. Just because Peter is a despicable character doesn't automatically make him a less than adequate wizard. Remember, he killed 12 people with a single curse (erroneously attributed to Sirius) which was also powerful enough to blow up an entire city block.

The giant squid - Aug 27, 2004 11:39 pm (#250 of 292)

but Neville does use Hermione's wand fairly successfully during the Battle at the Ministry after she is incapacitated

Not to be argumentative, Zelmia , but I just finished rereading OotP. Neville didn't actually use Hermione's wand at all for magic. His broken nose prohibited it; he kept yelling "stubify" but nothing happened. The only time the wand was of any use was when he poked a DE in the eye.

That said, there was a discussion on this on another thread a while ago, and I think we came to the tentative conclusion that while a wand will work for anyone, the owner of that wand can use it more efficiently. Higher-difficulty spells may not go off as planned if you're using your friend's wand. As for Peter casting an AK with LV's wand...I see the AK as being a simple spell to cast, another reason why it's illegal and Unforgivable. Actually, all the Unforgivables seem to be fairly easy to cast, no "swish and flick" or anything like that. But that's a topic for another thread...


John Bumbledore
John Bumbledore
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 782
Join date : 2011-02-23
Age : 58
Location : North Carolina, USA


Back to top Go down

Possible glitch in GoF - Page 2 Empty Possible glitch in GoF

Post  John Bumbledore Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:04 pm

schoff - Aug 27, 2004 11:53 pm (#251 of 292)

I see the AK as being a simple spell to cast, another reason why it's illegal and Unforgivable.

If the AK--as an Unforgivable Curse--is a simple spell to cast, then why couldn't Harry do the Cruciatus Curse? AK's got to be fairly tough, or everyone would go around doing it.

Peter's got to be fairly powerful. Not only did he "kill 12 with one curse" but he also became an animagi. Becoming an animagi has already been stated as being extremely difficult to do, even if your friends are helping you. I'm also willing to bet it's the reason Voldemort choose Wormtail to lend a helping "hand" with the rebirth. Voldie could have used anyone (especially Crouch Jr.), expediency really isn't really a good excuse there.

There is an example of one of the students using someone else's wand successfully, but I don't remember who it was and I'm not near my books.

The giant squid - Aug 27, 2004 11:57 pm (#252 of 292)

schoff, it's the difference between casting it, and casting it effectively. The Unforgivables seem to require malice and intent moreso than casting ability. Anyone can say "crucio!", but you have to mean it for it to work.

Also, we only have Bellatrix' word for why Harry's crucio didn't work. Maybe she actually had a protective spell up and just wanted to taunt him some more. It's certainly in her character to do so.

Ozymandias - Aug 28, 2004 12:05 am (#253 of 292)

I must agree with Schoff, here.

Avada Kedavra's a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it--you could all get your wands out now and point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I'd get so much as a nosebleed. -Fake Moody, GoF chapter 14

I get the impression, from that, Bella's taunts, and the general awe that these curses seem to inspire, that all the unforgivables are fairly advanced magic.

EDIT: Wait a sec, didn't Krum crucio Ced in the third task? He was under Fake Moody's imperio curse at the time. Would this make a difference, or is he just really powerful for his age?

schoff - Aug 28, 2004 12:09 am (#254 of 292)

Sorry I wasn't clear, Giant Squid. It was a rhetorical question. Intent alone (IMO) insures the Unforgivables are not simple spells. And remember, the intent has to be specific. I'm pretty sure Harry wanted Bella to suffer at that moment, but it still wasn't enough.

And I'm pretty sure JKR wants us to take Bella at her word about why Harry could not cast Crucio. I'm pretty sure she doesn't want us thinking that Harry has the true intent to be able to cast it.

Ozy: Tons of people got out of Azkaban the first time by saying they were under the Imperius curse. I'm fairly certain not all of them were lying. They were probably made to do some pretty nasty things against their will, because their individual will was too weak to overcome the will of the one putting them under the curse. (I can probably come up with a better argument when I'm at home with my books.)

zelmia - Aug 28, 2004 11:07 am (#255 of 292)

You're right about Neville using Hermione's wand. Guess I should have looked that up. I rememberd that his pronunciation was off because of his broken nose, but it seemed that once they got into the Veil room his spells worked using Hermione's wand.
Nevertheless, my point was simply that Neville is not a "weak" wizard. Apart from Harry, Neville was the only one who didn't succumb to the Death Eaters' spells. It took a kick in the face to subdue him and even then he was right back on his feet. More importantly, I think the fact that he was completely willing to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Harry against the Death Eaters shows that Neville is a lot stronger than people give him credit for.

The giant squid - Aug 28, 2004 10:38 pm (#256 of 292)

I'm right with you about Neville, Zelmia. It's just that, as I said, I'd just finished OotP, so that scene was fresh in my mind. Neville is by no means weak. He's shown his strength of character all the way back in PS/SS and even more so in the fight in the veil room, we just haven't seen him prove himself magically yet. Teh key word there is "yet"...


Herm oh ninny - Aug 31, 2004 9:20 am (#257 of 292)

Hey gang! I'm a newbie so bear with me! I have to say that I fully agree with giant squid & zelmia about Neville. I always noticed how JK always draws parallels between Neville & Pettigrew, saying how they resemble each other and trying to my readers wonder if Neville will chose the same path. The difference is that Pettigrew is and always was weak, always looking out for himself first. Neville may not seem all too powerfull, but he has a brave heart and would die for his loved ones. He will never take the "Pettigrew Path". Sorry to ramble on so but I love Neville.

Gryffindor Girls - Sep 1, 2004 10:13 am (#258 of 292)

This really stumps me! Good analyzation. I still think that Wormtail would've been killed by V even with the info. The Dark Lord shows mercy for no one. Especially not a weakling like Pettigrew.

This is my second post so I really don't know where to go. Is there a forum for newbies or where queries can be posted?

sjcuk13 - Sep 13, 2004 12:39 pm (#259 of 292)

Something gets me about Neville we find out on OotP that Neville has been using his fathers wand. Now taking you back all the way to PS/SS Olivander says "You will never get such good results with another wizards wand."

As we seen in OotP Neville is good at magic when given the time and attention he needs so I agree Neville will come on leaps and bounds in the next book.

Jessalynn Quirky - Sep 14, 2004 2:59 am (#260 of 292)

I thought when Ollivander said that he meant another wizarding company? Sort of like saying, "Buy from me, because my wands are the best. Nobody's else's are better!" Advertising, you know?

John Bumbledore
John Bumbledore
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 782
Join date : 2011-02-23
Age : 58
Location : North Carolina, USA


Back to top Go down

Possible glitch in GoF - Page 2 Empty Possible glitch in GoF

Post  John Bumbledore Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:04 pm

sjcuk13 - Sep 14, 2004 12:31 pm (#261 of 292)

it could be but I always took it as there is a right wand out there for you and if you done have it or it doesn't react to you then your not going to get good results, or any results at all.

Madam Pince - Sep 14, 2004 8:24 pm (#262 of 292)

sjcuk13, I thought as you did. The wand that is "destined" specifically for you is the one which will yield you the best results, although you technically could make another wand work for you. I thought of it kind of like tires on a car -- almost any old tires will go 'round and make the car move, but only the ones designed for the car will make it handle best.

That said, it always seemed to bring up the problem of what happens if "your" wand gets broken or destroyed? Like Ron's, for example. And Mr. Ollivander saying "It seems only yesterday she (Lily) was in here herself, buying her first wand." (italics mine - seems to imply you get more than one wand.) How can you just casually get another wand, if the wands are so intricately attached to the owner?

Upon re-reading the scene in Ollivander's, however, I can see your point, Jessalynn. It could conceivably be just Mr. Ollivander bragging about the quality of his wands. Hmmmm.

I think we're getting way off topic here, though. This probably belongs in a "Wands" thread, or "Sorcerer's Stone" thread or something. Certainly not "Glitch in GOF." Sorry!

sjcuk13 - Sep 15, 2004 3:59 am (#263 of 292)

I think that you can have more then one wand but the wand would need to be compatible with you as when harry manages to produce sparks, the way I took Olavanader is, that the wand that reacts to you is yours and was descend for you whether or not it is your first wand.

Albus-Dumbledore - Oct 3, 2004 4:36 am (#264 of 292)

I think that Wormtail was there with Voldemort that night (probably transfigured as a rat) and when he saw Voldy codswallop he grabbed his wand and went on a run; probably hiding his wand at a safer place.

John Bumbledore - Oct 20, 2004 10:09 am (#265 of 292)

I agree with AD and the others who have said that Wormtail was at Goddric Hollow and got the wand. In GF we see Harry accio his wand to his hand with it out of his reach but close to him (if my memory correctly serves.)

So, I think Peter was there and after the big boom, summoned VM's wand with the accio spell, then transfigured.

He hid with the Weasley family; did Percy or Ron ever visit their dad at work? Very possible and either may have taken Scabbers with them to the MoM. Another way for pp to get VM's wand (if it was held at the Mom.) Could you imagine Fudge's reaction, ["Oh my, no! We can't let the wizarding world know that VM wand was in our DoM division and then lost. Too many questions would be asked," said Fudge.] That is how I would imagine Fudge's reaction.

If Peter had it would he carry it or stash it? He would stash it away, of course. He wouldn't want to be found with it just as Lucious has a secret stash of dark arts and (presumably) other VM items. So he learns from being with Ron (CS and following) that VM is still around and his possible or likely location.

Then it's on to PA and only then is Peter worried about his perfect disguise. And only after his exposure does he flee to find VM.

And about the MoM using Priori Incantatem to investigate who cast what spell, rubbish! First, they would need Harry's wand to do such an investigation on VM's wand because this effect only happens when "brother" wands (with cores of the same type from the same source) meet in combat. Unless, what was the spell used by Mr. Diggory on Harry's wand after the dark mark was summoned? Was that a Priori Incantatem or a different spell? (I don't have my books to consult.) Second, this would only prove the wand was used to cast a particular spell on a victim but not who did the casting, no does it give a time line. It only provides a limited sequential history of spells cast with that wand.


At the end of 'Goblet of Fire', in which order should Harry's parents have come out of the wand?
Lily first, then James. That’s how it appears in my original manuscript but we were under enormous
pressure to edit it very fast and my American editor thought that was the wrong way around, and
he is so good at catching small errors I changed it without thinking, then realised it had been
right in the first place. We were all very sleep-deprived at the time.

©2004 J.K. Rowling. All Rights Reserved.

Cedric died last, James died first, thus Cedric came out first and James echoed out last. No problem there (I think I have a first edition of the American Paperback, because that error by the editor jumped out at me the first time I read it.)

After all, it is the wand that picks the wizard. Olivander says "You will never get such good results with another wizards wand."

Like an athlete and her equipment, there is a best fitting shoe, rifle or racket. Put sloppy shoes on Mia Hamm and she'll run slower, and miss kick more often than if she has the best fitted shoes that she has used before. True, she would still burry me in a game of one-on-one even if she was barefoot and running on crushed stone, but then I am an old man.

So Peter could have used VM's wand, but less effectively then to use his own. Does he have his own wand? This is not mentioned in the book that I can recall. I think of the movies when I "see" Professor McGonagall transfigure into a cat and she doesn't use a wand. Serious doesn't have a wand when he is in Azkaban, but he is able to transform. There is some magic that wizards and witches can do without there wands. I don't think he had a wand, it may even have been blown up during his faked death.

"Is there anything else to summarize? bd "

zelmia - Oct 20, 2004 8:25 pm (#266 of 292)

Harry Accio'd his wand in OP, not in GF. In GF he Accio'd the Triwizard cup to escape. Wormtail had already given him back his wand, at Voldemort's order, so they could duel properly.

The giant squid - Oct 20, 2004 9:24 pm (#267 of 292)

Bumbledore, re priori incantatum: The priori spell was the one Diggory cast on Harry's wand to reveal the Dark Mark. The effect between Harry & LV was because their wands are "related", but was also called the priori incantatum.

Other than that, I think you got it.


Choices - Oct 21, 2004 8:04 am (#268 of 292)

Actually, the spell cast to check to see if Harry's wand had cast the Dark Mark was Priori Incantato, not Priori Incantatum - check your GOF book in The Dark Mark chapter. The spells are different and I don't think the one Diggory cast had anything to do with the Priori Incantatum effect during Harry's duel with Voldemort later. If I'm wrong, please show me.

TwinklingBlueEyes - Oct 21, 2004 12:07 pm (#269 of 292)

Well, we'll soon see, growled Mr. Diggory, looking unimpressed. "There's a simple way of discovering the last spell a wand performed, elf, did you know that?" Winky trembled and shook her head frantically, her ears flapping, as Mr. Diggory raised his own wand again and placed it tip to tip with Harry's. "Prior Incantato!" roared Mr. Diggory.

The wands connected? he said, looking from Harry to Dumbledore. "Why?" Harry looked up at Dumbledore again, on whose face there was an arrested look. "Priori Incantatem," he muttered... "The Reverse Spell effect?" said Sirius sharply. "Exactly," said Dumbledore. "Harry's wand and Voldemorts wand share cores. Each of them contains a feather from the tail of the same phoenix. This phoenix, in fact," ... "So what happens when a wand meets its brother?" said Sirius. "They will not work properly against each other," said Dumbledore. "If, however, the owners of the wands force the wands to do battle ... a very rare effect will take place. One of the wands will force the other to regurgitate spells it has performed - in reverse. The most recent first. . . and then those which preceded it. . . ." He looked interrogatively at Harry, and Harry nodded.

You are quite right Choices.

The giant squid - Oct 21, 2004 7:56 pm (#270 of 292)

Thanks, Choices & TBE. I didn't have the books handy and, well, they are similar... I guess I've always thought that Priori Incantatem is the effect of the Priori Incantato spell.

John Bumbledore
John Bumbledore
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 782
Join date : 2011-02-23
Age : 58
Location : North Carolina, USA


Back to top Go down

Possible glitch in GoF - Page 2 Empty Possible glitch in GoF

Post  John Bumbledore Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:05 pm

Choices - Oct 22, 2004 7:58 am (#271 of 292)

You're welcome Squid - I didn't notice the difference either until I read the Ultimate Unofficial Guide to the Mysteries of HP and it pointed it out. Glad I could pass that info on. :-)

TwinklingBlueEyes - Oct 22, 2004 8:03 am (#272 of 292)

Glad to be of help.

Catherine - Oct 22, 2004 4:15 pm (#273 of 292)

Mike, we can be uninformed together.

The "-um" ending indicates "place where." I don't see that affecting the overall meaning.

zelmia - Oct 22, 2004 9:28 pm (#274 of 292)

Well the difference is that one is simply an incantation ("Priori incantato") which performs a spell that shows the last spell a wand has cast.
The other ("Priori Incantatum") is really a phenomenon: the effect or result of two spells being cast simultaneously from brother wands.

schoff - Oct 23, 2004 1:50 pm (#275 of 292)

Actually, the spell cast to check to see if Harry's wand had cast the Dark Mark was Priori Incantato, not Priori Incantatum

Personally, I think "Incantato" is merely the verbal way to activate the Incantatem, just like "Crucio" and "Imperio" are the ways to activate the Cruciatus and Imperius Curses. It probably has something to do with the rules for Latin grammar. I know German has a rule for command form.

TwinklingBlueEyes - Oct 23, 2004 9:39 pm (#276 of 292)

Priori Incantato Point me to canon please, I'm lost now.

zelmia - Oct 24, 2004 9:42 am (#277 of 292)

TBE, this is the incantation Amos Diggory uses in GF when they corner Winky in the forest to see if the wand she is holding did indeed cast the Dark Mark.
I believe in Latin the nouns also have tenses which vary according to number and/or gender. "Incantatum" (which I'm not sure is a real word in Latin to begin with) would be the plural of "incantato". We first hear this in CS - The Dueling Club, when Snape instantly puts and end to all the various spells - and ensuing chaos - in the room with a single spell: "Finite incantatum" (uttered by Hermione in the film at the Quidditch match).
Rowling seems to take great liberties with Latin, often inventing many words that sound Latin but aren't really, and intermixing them with real Latin words.
Having said all that, it seems that the Priori Incantatum observed in the graveyard is really more of an extremely rare phenomenon than an actual spell one might cast.

Choices - Oct 24, 2004 4:13 pm (#278 of 292)

Zelmia - "Well the difference is that one is simply an incantation ("Priori incantato") which performs a spell that shows the last spell a wand has cast. The other ("Priori Incantatum") is really a phenomenon: the effect or result of two spells being cast simultaneously from brother wands."

Well said - I totally agree.

Detail Seeker - Nov 2, 2004 2:04 pm (#279 of 292)

The "-um" denotes a noun neutral, singular, nominative or accusative. The "-o" may either be Dative or ablative singular of said noun or first person, singular, present of a verb, possibily translated as "I incantate". I tend to think, the latter is fitting better.

mike miller - Nov 11, 2004 9:08 am (#280 of 292)

This isn't really a "glitch" so much as an observation and a question. The 12 DE's that go to the DoM to collect the prophesy from Harry are all named, lead by dear Lucius. Crabbe Sr. is there but no mention of Goyle Sr. Is this a subtle hint from JKR? Will Goyle Jr. be one of the Slytherins to come over to the good side?

John Bumbledore
John Bumbledore
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 782
Join date : 2011-02-23
Age : 58
Location : North Carolina, USA


Back to top Go down

Possible glitch in GoF - Page 2 Empty Possible glitch in GoF

Post  John Bumbledore Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:06 pm

Choices - Nov 11, 2004 9:43 am (#281 of 292)

Maybe it just means that Crabbe and Goyle Senior are not as inseparable as are their sons. Perhaps Goyle was not chosen by Voldemort or Malfoy to go that night or perhaps he just had other duties that kept him from going.

Steve Newton - Nov 11, 2004 10:12 am (#282 of 292)

Mike, also note that Goyle, Jr. is never mentioned as being in the Inquisitorial Squad. He was also bitten by Scabbers in SS by a Lord V stalwart.

JackO - Nov 11, 2004 11:04 am (#283 of 292)

Maybe Goyle Sr. is an inept at magic as his son and Voldemort doesn't trust his aim enough to have him to attack some teenagers. He might poke someone's eye out waving that wand all over the place.

mike miller - Nov 11, 2004 12:07 pm (#284 of 292)

Steve - Interesting observations regarding young Mr. Goyle. I wonder if the absence on Goyle Jr. in the PoA movie is one of those foreshadowing things JKR referenced about the movie? We see both Crabbe and Goyle early in the movie (up to the flying Buckbeak scene) then Goyle is replaced by another Slytherin boy who I think remains unnamed throughout the film.

JackO - I was always thought Crabbe and Goyle were about on par with each other when it came to magical skill. They were kept around for their "muscle" and the fact that they were easily manipulated by Malfoy.

Choices - Nov 11, 2004 5:11 pm (#285 of 292)

Mike - I read a report about Goyle's absense in some of the POA scenes - he supposedly had exams at school and had to miss out on some of the shooting of the film.

Loony Loopy Larissa - Nov 13, 2004 3:38 pm (#286 of 292)

Does anyone remember which one was chosen by Draco to be his second for the midnight duel? Perhaps the Goyles (Jr. and Sr.) aren't quite as magically adept as the Crabbes.

schoff - Nov 17, 2004 12:35 pm (#287 of 292)

Draco picked Crabbe.

JackO - Nov 19, 2004 8:43 am (#288 of 292)
Edited by Denise P. Nov 19, 2004 4:38 pm

Crabbe and Goyle are always together. You don't usually see one without the other. But that doesn't mean that they're identical in every way. Their talent at magic is very limited it seems, but it makes sense for one to be better than the other.

Mara Jade - Dec 9, 2004 6:12 pm (#289 of 292)

Um, in OoP, isn't there a scene after the Quibbler interview release of Harry and co being in the library while Malfoy, Grabbe, Goyle and Nott were scowling at them because 'he had named all their fathers as death eaters'? I don't have the book on me, so correct me if I am wrong.

Loony Loopy Larissa - Dec 11, 2004 12:24 pm (#290 of 292)

Yes, I just read that chapter. Well, I'm pretty sure they were in the library, but they were all together.

ellebell86 - Jan 6, 2005 9:56 am (#291 of 292)

I don't know if this has been discussed anywhere or not but or if this is the right place for this but in Ch. 1 of GoF there are 3 bodies that are "scarred to death" Did Tom Riddle have a brother or sister. If not, who is the third person. One is Mr. Riddle and the other is Mrs. Riddle. "Fifty years before, at daybreak on a fine summer's morning,when the Riddle house had stil been well kept and impressive, a maid had entered the drawing room to find all three Riddles dead." GoF pg 1-2. A few paraghraphs later it talks about houw the town disliked them b/c Elderly "Mr. and Mrs. Riddle had been rich, snobbish, and rude, and their grown-up son Tom, had been if anything, worse." I'm not sure about this but I remeber hearing that Tom was an orphan (possibly somewhere in CoS with the Diary) I have always had the impression that Tom had murdered his parents. I don't know if i created that fact myself or not. Could Tom have been faking death only to apparate from his casket. But then what about the autopsy that states they were all examined and fond perfectly healthy except for the fact that they were dead.

D.W. - Jan 6, 2005 10:29 am (#292 of 292)


I don't have the book handy to make quotes, but I believe Tom's father (also called Tom) returned to live with his parents when he found out his wife was a witch. Tom's mother died in childbirth.

At about age 16 Tom went to his grandparents house and killed his father and grandparents, elderly Mr. & Mrs. Riddle. So the three bodies are Voldie's dad and his paternal grandparents. I believe it seems confusing because Voldie (Tom) and his dad have the same name.

Hope that helps. Donna.

John Bumbledore
John Bumbledore
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 782
Join date : 2011-02-23
Age : 58
Location : North Carolina, USA


Back to top Go down

Possible glitch in GoF - Page 2 Empty Re: Possible glitch in GoF

Post  Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum