Minor parts of the story that alarm or surprise you.

[ShadowSonic]

Snape always had this "blind spot" whenever anyone said anything good about James. Dumbledore was probably just using Lily as a way of getting in into Snape's skull that "Harry's a good kid!" because he knew by now that defending James was pointless to Snape.

[wolfbrother]

Originally Posted by Verena

I know that James teenager has never been kind to Snape, but it seems that, in the opinion of Dumbledore, Harry is a good person because he has the character of his mother, as if Dumbledore is saying that, luckily, Harry doesn't look like James. Dumbledore could say that James growing up has changed, so as to change Snape’s opinion about Harry (and maybe also about James), and don't say that Snape is judging Harry in the wrong way because he’s like Lily and didn't like James. So it seems that Dumbledore is agree with Snape that James has a bad character and therefore he might be a bad person.

Just because Harry had the nature of his mother does not mean that his father's nature was bad. I do think Dumbledore was right though. James always struck me as someone who had that little bit of arrogance. I think Lily was more grounded.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by Verena

There's a sentence of Dumbledore in the Deathly Hallows that annoyed me a bit:

“What are you doing with Potter, all these evenings you are closeted together?” Snape asked abruptly.
Dumbledore looked weary. “Why? You aren’t trying to give him more detentions, Severus? The boy will soon have spent more time in detention than out.”
“He is his father over again…”
“In looks, perhaps, but his deepest nature is much more like his mother’s.
I spend time with Harry because I have things to discuss with him, information I must give him before it is too late.” (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - chapter 33 - The prince's tale)

I know that James teenager has never been kind to Snape, but it seems that, in the opinion of Dumbledore, Harry is a good person because he has the character of his mother, as if Dumbledore is saying that, luckily, Harry doesn't look like James. Dumbledore could say that James growing up has changed, so as to change Snape’s opinion about Harry (and maybe also about James), and don't say that Snape is judging Harry in the wrong way because he’s like Lily and didn't like James. So it seems that Dumbledore is agree with Snape that James has a bad character and therefore he might be a bad person.

Personally, I never interpreted this to mean that because Harry's deepest nature is more like his mother that that means his father's deepest nature was to be a terrible, arrogant, big headed person all the time, forever and ever. I think Dumbledore knew both James and Lily's personal faults and their personal strengths and Harry's deepest nature, according to Dumbledore, aligned more with Lily's faults and strengths than with James's faults and strengths.

I disagree that this statement alone is saying that Dumbledore agreed with Snape that James had a bad character; he's not saying anything negative about James at all; that is all coming from or implied from Snape's words, not Dumbledore's.

Here's my line-by-line interpretation of the scene (my interpretation follows [in brackets]:

“What are you doing with Potter, all these evenings you are closeted together?” Snape asked abruptly. [Why aren't you closested together with me and confiding in me?]

Dumbledore looked weary. “Why? You aren’t trying to give him more detentions, Severus? The boy will soon have spent more time in detention than out.” [You're punishments of Harry are a bit excessive, don't you think?]

“He is his father over again…” [Getting into trouble and getting detentions]

“In looks, perhaps, but his deepest nature is much more like his mother’s." [Harry may look more like James but his personality reminds me more of Lily than of James]

[merrymarge]

I am still surprised by Kreacher's Tale. Somehow I didn't think Kreacher did anything except complain.

[lelapc]

I Have a question about CoS - Why were there scorch marks where Mrs. Norris was found petrified??? I can't figure it out anywhere! Thanks!!

[Lillielle]

^You know...I honestly don't know. And now I'm wondering that, too. Why would there be? The Basilisk Petrified Mrs. Norris, it didn't set her on fire. I'm...now baffled.

I'm sure other people have brought this up, but I always wondered at Mrs. Weasley's almost...nonchalance in the second book about hearing that the Dursleys had been starving Harry. I mean...what? You just heard the boy's been starved and your only reaction is to pile a bit more food on his plate? Unless perhaps she thought they were exaggerating, but...that startled me a lot.

I still can't imagine how Dumbledore did not realize Voldemort was on the back of Quirrell's head. Honestly, the only conclusion I could draw is even creepier--that he DID know and chose not to do anything about it. Why, I don't know (to give Harry a fighting chance? because he didn't want to remove Quirrell/Voldy before finding out what You Know Who's plans were?), but I just can't see how he didn't notice. -scratches head-

I was also always shocked at Dumbledore's reaction to Sirius's werewolf prank. Severus could have died. But even more than that--if he just didn't care about that, Remus could have been executed for biting a student! Did no one think of that, really? The Marauders pulled off enough other pranks that I can't see why Dumbledore couldn't have severely punished them for that without other people knowing the exact reason why (so that Remus wasn't found out by the Ministry as a werewolf), and he wouldn't have basically brushed Severus off like "oh yeah, well, you almost were murdered and all, but that doesn't matter." Not to mention how he explains it to Harry in the first book, that James did something Severus couldn't forgive, he "saved his life." If it wasn't for the Marauders, Severus's life wouldn't have needed saving.

And I have to agree that Hermione's SPEW campaign always deeply disturbed me, as well. The original thought? I understood that. Particularly after Dobby and Winky. How Crouch treated Winky was despicable (but that's another story). But once she'd done the research, heard from other people from wizarding families (including people who weren't just prejudiced nits!) -AND- heard from house elves themselves, she should have put the pieces together and realized her campaign was doing more harm than good. Perhaps it could have been modified so that she could help house elves who were being harmed find better posts or something. Not simply freeing them. Dobby was an anomaly and even he didn't feel comfortable just getting paid a normal wage and all that. Why house elves are like that is, of course, another subject and perhaps one that she could have researched and examined. But the way it stood, she was honestly just being cruel to them, what with booby-trapping the common room and all that.

[ginny_hawthorn]

What really surprised me was that Molly Weasleys' two brothers Fabian and Gideon were members of the original order and Molly gave Harry Fabians' old wizarding watch. I mean it was a treasured peice from her dead brother you'd think that she might have held onto it.

[asdfasdf17]

Originally Posted by ginny_hawthorn

What really surprised me was that Molly Weasleys' two brothers Fabian and Gideon were members of the original order and Molly gave Harry Fabians' old wizarding watch. I mean it was a treasured peice from her dead brother you'd think that she might have held onto it.

Yeah that was surprising. But I guess it shows how much she values Harry.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by ginny_hawthorn

What really surprised me was that Molly Weasleys' two brothers Fabian and Gideon were members of the original order and Molly gave Harry Fabians' old wizarding watch. I mean it was a treasured peice from her dead brother you'd think that she might have held onto it.

More than it showing that she values Harry, as asdfasdf17 says, I'm surprised it wasn't given away earlier than Harry.

Molly seemed to understand that Ron would have appreciated having a new watch rather than "another hand-me-down", but what about Fred or George? They're very loyal to their family and I think would have appreciated having the watch of their hero uncle. The only caveat there is that only one twin could get the watch, unless Molly had Gideon's watch too.

Why wasn't it given to Bill or Charlie who would have been the most likely candidates to receive and appreciate family heirlooms; they, afterall, didn't suffer through the years of hand-me-downs that Ron did.

Why wasn't Percy given that watch? As the third son I could imagine Bill getting a watch from Arthur or a grandparent, Charlie getting Gideon's watch and Percy getting Fabian's watch and then Fred, George and Ron getting new watches.

BTW, what would Ginny have gotten on her 17th birthday? If it's traditional to give a young man a watch, what's the traditional gift for a girl?

[asdfasdf17]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

BTW, what would Ginny have gotten on her 17th birthday? If it's traditional to give a young man a watch, what's the traditional gift for a girl?

Ginny is the first girl in many generations (I think seven?) so they might not even have a tradition for girls!

[Schlubalybub]

I think that they gave Ron a new watch, one that they had probably saved up for. Molly's brother's watch was battered and dented, it wasn't the nicest watch by the time Harry got it, but I think that Ron got a new one because he rarely got brand new things, so they would have given him a brand new watch.

The Weasleys would not have been able to afford a new watch for Harry as well, within the same year, and what with Ginny only being a school year behind Harry and Ron, they've got another 17th to plan for within a year of Harry's birthday. So Mrs Weasley gave Harry the watch that had belonged to her brother, who, as she'd said, didn't really look after his stuff. Harry didn't exactly need a brand new item, if he'd wanted a brand new watch, he could have afforded it. But Molly gave him something that didn't cost her in money, but still meant something to her. She knew that Harry would understand the importance of the watch, whereas Ron, no matter how much I like him, there was more of a chance of him complaining for having yet another pre-used item. Ron wouldn't have appreciated it as much as Harry, because he had so many things that had already belonged to other people. The only thing Harry had that had belonged to someone else within the magical world was his Invisibility Cloak, and because Harry was able to have a lot of new things, he'd have understood the meaning more than Ron. OK, there was the Marauder's Map too, so with that reasoning- it shows that Harry understands the importance even more, because both the cloak and the map were really important to him

Not that I'm saying that Ron didn't get the importance of items passed down through families, it's just that he'd had so many things that were second- or third- hand, it may have passed him by


The scorch marks, I always thought it was because of the Basilisk looking at Mrs Norris- I assumed that there were scorch marks whenever the Basilisk looked at something living. Otherwise it would be destroying everything it looked at...at least that was my reasoning

[sjcuk13]

Originally Posted by asdfasdf17

Ginny is the first girl in many generations (I think seven?) so they might not even have a tradition for girls!

I always got the impression that the watch gift was not just an exclusive thing for the Weasleys I assumed this was for the whole of the wizarding world (or at least the UK bit) just like we get the key to to door at 21 (a UK custom).
I would like to know what girls get as there is not that much in the was of discrimination on gender in the books perhaps girls get the same a watch.

[SeverusSnapeHBP]

I was surprised that JK used Peeves as a useful deterrent to the Deatheaters in DH.

[Verena]

It’s not just a minor part, because it concerns the death of Snape, but ... I was surprised that Snape dies in the Shrieking Shack, that can be considered as a kind of “Marauders’ house”...

[ShadowSonic]

He almost got killed in the Shrieking Shack as a teen, then he died there as an adult...

[asdfasdf17]

Originally Posted by ShadowSonic

He almost got killed in the Shrieking Shack as a teen, then he died there as an adult...

Aw that makes his death sound even worse!

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by asdfasdf17

Aw that makes his death sound even worse!

I'm sure that's what JKR intended.

[ajna]

Originally Posted by StarryVeil

YES. I found it even odder when I found out that Dumbledore himself had suggested Sirius live in that cave - meaning he knew he was there. He also knew Sirius would have a terribly difficult time managing to find satisfactory food around Hogsmeade, either as himself or as a dog. Then how come he didn't see to it that regular supplies of food be sent to Sirius so he wouldn't have to live off rats? Meh, that's just one more instance of Dumbledore's uncharacteristic negligence and dumbness when it came to handling post-Azkaban Sirius.

Maybe no one knew he was having issues with getting food? He was a full fledged wizard after all.

[therealone]

i always found it weird nobody would hide in the muggle world. Not Sirius, because the Police was informed,
but all those People camping in book 7.
The Trio, Dean, Ted Tonks ...

It's not like Death Eaters could search through Muggle-London or something.

[asdfasdf17]

Originally Posted by therealone

i always found it weird nobody would hide in the muggle world. Not Sirius, because the Police was informed,
but all those People camping in book 7.
The Trio, Dean, Ted Tonks ...

It's not like Death Eaters could search through Muggle-London or something.

I think they had reached, or were reaching, that point in their reign where they would have easy access to the muggle world and know what was going on and stuff. They wouldn't have left such an easy escape route for Muggleborns.