The Harry Potter All Spoilers, All the Time Thread

[katgib13]

I'm probably the only one but I didn't like Molly's "bitch" outburst. To me, it was out of character for her. Maybe that was the point.

I didn't mind that the epilogue didn't share too much. As others have said, it leaves the door open for a future series. However, I did expect Ron's son to be named Fred.

Ah, Molly was in Mama Bear mode. She had just lost one son, while another was scarred for life and yet another lost an ear. I imagine she just snapped...

Ron probably couldn't name his son Fred...I'm sure George beat him to it.

[helpmeturnitoff]

What were Harry's parents jobs

That's one of the questions I'd hoped DH would answer. I'm guessing though that it was kind of answered - Voldemort was gathering strength while Harry's parents were still at Hogwarts. They likely went from school right to the Order and never had 'real' jobs. James was an only child with elderly parents and likely inherited his wealth, never really needing to work.

JK was interviewed by Katie Couric and it will air on the Today show tomorrow & Friday and again on Dateline this Sunday and they promise a lot of questions will be answered (like the headmaster one). So fingers crossed!

[katgib13]

Oooh! In Case You Didn't Know just reported that Naomi Watts just signed on for the next Harry Potter film as Narcissa Malfoy, Draco's mother!

[Carla]

I also wonder, as many of you mention, why she states in DH that the invisibility cloak is "impenetrable" but has Mad-Eye see through it in GOF and Malfoy curse Harry when he's wearing it in HBP. I guess I'll have to go back and re-read the books to see if there is something about the cloak I missed. I'm sure as thorough as JK is (and with all of her editors probably looking for incontinuity issues) that seemingly inconsistency about the cloak must be explained in some way. Any ideas anyone?

From DH on page 410-411

"Ah, but the Third Hallow is a true Cloak of Invisibility, Miss Granger! I mean to say, it is not a traveling cloak imbued with a Disillusionment Charm, or carrying a Bedazzling Hex, or else woven from Demiguise hair, which will hide one initially but fade with the years until it turns opaque. We are talking about a cloak that really and truly renders the wearer completely invisible, and endures eternally, giving constant and impenetrable concealment no matter what spells are cast at it."

Jo specifically says that the cloak offers impenetrable concealment; she doesn't say that the cloak itself is impenetrable, which is why Dumbledore was able to put Harry in a body bind in HBP. He may have been immobilized, but still could not be seen. It's just a guess on my part because of the wording, and it doesn't really explain why Mad-Eye's magical eye can see through it.

[FireWoman]

Ah, Molly was in Mama Bear mode. She had just lost one son, while another was scarred for life and yet another lost an ear. I imagine she just snapped...

Ron probably couldn't name his son Fred...I'm sure George beat him to it.

I took her outburst to be because it was her ONLY daughter.. and by that, she was that much more prized. I still loved it. )

[anemone]

The snake was also a horcrux and still alive at this point. Neville didn't kill it until after Harry 'died' and that's why Harry & Voldemort were both able to return. The curse that Voldemort hit Harry with rebounded on him as well, that's what the "infant" in King's Cross was - the last bit of his soul, and because one horcrux remained they were both still tied to the living world.

I thought the infant was the bit of Voldy's soul that had been in Harry. It went with him to King's Cross. It stayed there when Harry came back.

[katgib13]

I took her outburst to be because it was her ONLY daughter.. and by that, she was that much more prized. I still loved it. )

That, coupled with her loss and the damage that this evil group had already inflicted upon their family...I'm sure was enough to set her off! I know I wouldn't want to tangle with dear Molly!

[Critical]

JK was interviewed by Katie Couric and it will air on the Today show tomorrow & Friday and again on Dateline this Sunday and they promise a lot of questions will be answered (like the headmaster one). So fingers crossed!

Since Katie is now on the CBS news, I'm guessing it'll be Meredith Viera doing the interview Either way, I'll be tuning in

I'm not sure if Naomi will make a good Narcissa or not. She might not be cold enough to pull it off. She's a very good actress though, so I'll reserve judgment until I see her in the role.

[lark37]

From DH on page 410-411

"Ah, but the Third Hallow is a true Cloak of Invisibility, Miss Granger! I mean to say, it is not a traveling cloak imbued with a Disillusionment Charm, or carrying a Bedazzling Hex, or else woven from Demiguise hair, which will hide one initially but fade with the years until it turns opaque. We are talking about a cloak that really and truly renders the wearer completely invisible, and endures eternally, giving constant and impenetrable concealment no matter what spells are cast at it."

Jo specifically says that the cloak offers impenetrable concealment; she doesn't say that the cloak itself is impenetrable, which is why Dumbledore was able to put Harry in a body bind in HBP. He may have been immobilized, but still could not be seen. It's just a guess on my part because of the wording, and it doesn't really explain why Mad-Eye's magical eye can see through it.

Thanks Carla for clarifying the impenetrable invisibility cloak mystery for me. It would have taken me much longer to find and re-read the passages from HBP and DH. You are right about Harry still being invisible after Malfoy casts his curse on him in the Hogwarts express. The more I think about Mad-Eye's magical eye, it seems that it could do all kinds of magical things an ordinary eye couldn't, so maybe it makes sense that it could see Harry through the cloak. Also, for what it's worth, a couple of very reliable Harry Potter websites are now reporting that the Naomi Watts as Narcissa Malfoy and Joseph Fiennes and Stuart Townsend in the cast of HBP rumors are untrue. I did wonder when reading the casting rumors why JKR would suddenly decide to use a non-British actor in a role in one of her films as Naomi Watts is Australian.

[Carla]

Thanks Carla for clarifying the impenetrable invisibility cloak mystery for me. It would have taken me much longer to find and re-read the passages from HBP and DH. You are right about Harry still being invisible after Malfoy casts his curse on him in the Hogwarts express. The more I think about Mad-Eye's magical eye, it seems that it could do all kinds of magical things an ordinary eye couldn't, so maybe it makes sense that it could see Harry through the cloak. Also, for what it's worth, a couple of very reliable Harry Potter websites are now reporting that the Naomi Watts as Narcissa Malfoy and Joseph Fiennes and Stuart Townsend in the cast of HBP rumors are untrue. I did wonder when reading the casting rumors why JKR would suddenly decide to use a non-British actor in a role in one of her films as Naomi Watts is Australian.

You're welcome. I had actually forgotten about the scene on the Hogwart's Express when I posted. Thanks for the reminder.

My vote for the role of Narcissa goes to Tilda Swinton (she played the White Witch in "The Chronicles of Narnia"). It's been awhile since I've found a character in a movie to be so unlikeable (and not in a "love to hate" sort of way). She's also got the voice and she can pull off the "pale" look required for someone playing a Malfoy. Is she British?