• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Harry Potter

I agree; dobby's death was probably the only one I didn't agree with.

oh, and hedwig's. :C
 
Verne said:
Why are we all upset about lupin and tonks it is a war. We do not look at people and go 'oh, that hero guy is friends with these people, don't kill them' if we are fighting against that hero guy. We don't take time to scrutinize the enemy before we fight, or we'll get killed ourselves. There is no reason that they would not be killed -- especially Lupin and Tonks, who aside from being major players in the Potter/Dumbledore side of the war were also known enemies of specific Death Eaters. Hell, had anyone fighting for Voldemort seen them, they would have probably killed them specifically! I back Rowling's choice on the deaths in the war entirely. It was a fine decision, seeing as there is little mercy to be found in a war like that one.
Click to expand...

I agree so much. Lupin and Tonks were some of my absolute favourite characters within the series, and I was extremely sad when I read that they had died, but it still felt so fitting. Jo wrote all the book's deaths to be realistic.

I don't disagree with any of them, because I still don't understand how you could feel that any of them were unnecessary - unnecessary deaths happen all the time and Rowling had to kill off some characters that were unexpected, for the shock factor. I still remember Moody's death as really shocking me, though. The others I expected or got spoilt for (Lupin and Dobby's stand out there... :< still so bitter about that) but Moody's was really startling. And the way they pretty much had no time to even think about it, just Bill's "He's dead. Moody's dead.", especially with his constant vigilance philosophy.

...they better do all the deaths justice in the film, or there will be words. >[
 
I actually do understand why Hedwig died. It made perfect sense, because without her death she would have followed Harry and co all over the place and drawn so much attention.

It's like. Dumbledore had to die too in order to push Harry over the edge. When Dumbledore was alive Harry didn't really have to do much of anything, but then he died and ... well ... within a year Voldemort was dead.
 
Harlequin said:
Why are we putting stuff in spoiler tags? DH is like three years old now!
Click to expand...

The guy I was replying to started the spoiler tags and I almost did not follow suit thinking the same but wanted to be on the safe side.
***
And I agree Dumbledor's death was very significant; he was very much a crutch to Harry with his presence there was not much of a need for Harry to do anything.

And I too hated Lupin dying he had always been one of my top favorite characters. I had also been disappointed we never see him as a werewolf again after the third book where he is introduced.
***

My bestie was actually telling me of a fanfic she was once reading featuring Voldemort having killed everyone before he himself is killed by Harry! So adult Harry goes back in time to his first year Hogwarts student self and changes bits and pieces of his Hogwarts past all leading up to saving everyone.

From what I have heard of her reading Harry as made such changes as pursuing Ginny sooner than originally, and requesting the sorting hat to place Luna in Gryffindor so that she will not be teased by her Ravenclaw classmates.
 
Nope dobby's was good too. Totally cried over it more than anyone else's cause DOBBY but kind of important yanno.

also why the hell would we have seen lupin as a werewolf /anyway/ the point was the guy HATED BEING A WEREWOLF and was terrified of himself and wanted less than anything to put someone in danger. Helloooo
 
Verne said:
Nope dobby's was good too. Totally cried over it more than anyone else's cause DOBBY but kind of important yanno.

also why the hell would we have seen lupin as a werewolf /anyway/ the point was the guy HATED BEING A WEREWOLF and was terrified of himself and wanted less than anything to put someone in danger. Helloooo
Click to expand...

Of course so he decided to turn it off I guess!
Seriously there was no need for you to be rude!
 
... Rude? what

It's not that he 'turned it off;' it's just that he did a very good job of not being a werewolf in public. He'd always made a point of isolating himself when the full moon was coming.
 
Yeah I agree, Lupin hated his "condition", and to see him like that any more than mentioned in the third book would be wrong. Plus it wouldn't be any use, he can't control himself in wolf form and he would go around killing everyone, friend or foe.


I feel Hedwig's death set the tone for the book, Dobby's was too. The fact that everyone around Harry sacrifices themselves in order to save him, when he keeps messing up. He let's others die for him. Another reason why I feel it more poetic for Harry to die and STAY DEAD DAMNIT!
 
I don't think the protagonist dying would be a very pleasant ending, though.
 
You can make it a bittersweet ending though if you go on to show that life got better.

Rowling would've had fans at her throat for it, though.
 
This is an awesome series. I've been reading it for a while now, and I believe The Sorcerer's Stone was the first book I ever read.
 
I've been having an argument that's been going on for maybe a year or two now with someone who used to go to school with me about whether wizards were humans with magic powers or a 'magic gene' or were an entirely different species that evolved from humans like the x-men did.

We've used a lot of stuff against each other but today someone found that in The Prisoner of Azkaban, Sirius refers to Pettigrew as 'human' therefore wizards are still humans. His reaction was "Well then J.K. Rowling is wrong"

It's fun arguing about nerdy things that doesn't even matter and you look equally stupid and wrong whichever side you're on.
 
wat
I am afraid your whatever there makes no sense.

1. I mean gosh a lot of the x-men are just mutated humans. X-men is just a name of a group of hero dorks, not some subspecies of human.

2. The only thing that differentiates wizard from human is the presence of magic. Even wizards recognize this -- the definition of 'muggle' is just 'person who hasn't got magic.' And before anyone argues that the word muggle denotes a separation from nonmagical people consider that we use wizard to denote magical people.

Unfortunately wizards are too scientifically idiotic to bother researching what it is that actually makes them magic. Until they manage to get off their lazy technologically challenged behinds and look into it, let's just assume it is something genetic -- in their blood, as they say.

I would make some note about evolution but well that's opal's job or something
 
Verne said:
wat
I am afraid your whatever there makes no sense.

1. I mean gosh a lot of the x-men are just mutated humans. X-men is just a name of a group of hero dorks, not some subspecies of human.
Click to expand...

I don't really know. He's the one who's into x-men. He says they're Homo superior instead of Homo sapiens or something like that. And argues that wizards in Harry Potter are Homo magi.

2. The only thing that differentiates wizard from human is the presence of magic. Even wizards recognize this -- the definition of 'muggle' is just 'person who hasn't got magic.' And before anyone argues that the word muggle denotes a separation from nonmagical people consider that we use wizard to denote magical people.
Click to expand...

This was what my point was in the first place.


Also how silly of me it's not like the entire thing was for fun or anything.

Going back a page too, I didn't see one person say that Lupin and Tonks shouldn't have died for any reason other than they liked their characters. I don't get how it being war and therefore realistic for people to die is a reason not to be upset about them dying.
 
Last edited:
Odds are your friend has no clue whatsoever what the word "species" actually means. Try asking him. Then ask him exactly how his definition of a "species", which obviously does not involve being a group that is significantly physiologically different from other such groups, is unable to have fertile offspring with individuals from other such groups, or does not interbreed with other such groups for any other reason, differs from "individuals with a 'magic gene'". Chances are you're arguing about the definition of a word and have no actual disagreement in how you in fact perceive the differences between muggles and wizards.
 
I think he probably knows more about Biology than me, but yeah I'm not too sure how they differ. One of the things we debated about a lot was how Hagrid says there aren't many families that aren't "half-blood or less" if half-bloods should be infertile by his definition.

I won't go into much more detail about all this though. Other crazy things we discussed are things like how wands and magic words were invented in the first place :V
 
Or we could get away from the biology bit and say screw it it's just magic.... get it, magic, as in doesn't make sense...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom