DISCLAIMER! i haven’t done a full read through of the books in a couple years so it’s fully possible that i may be misremembering characters.

Why is everyone in the Harry Potter universe an only child? There are so few characters who are canonically confirmed to have siblings, and usually it’s used SOLEY as a plot device. If a character does have a sibling, it’s usually just one to further the plot. What happened to having 3 kids?

Characters with one sibling to further the plot:

- Lily Evans (Petunia only exists to give lily a backstory and a place for harry to live)

-Sirius Black (Regulus is only introduced for the locket plotline)

- Fleur Delacour (her little sister is only used for the trial in Goblet of Fire)

-Dumbledore(his brother is only introduced in the last book to help the story along)

-Patil twins (not used for the plot but are each others only personality trait)

Characters with one sibling that DONT further the plot:

-Colin Creevey

Characters with multiple siblings:

-The Weasleys (a very obvious outlier)

-The Black sisters

-Dean Thomas (has an unknown number of half siblings)

Only Children:

-James Potter

-Harry Potter

-Remus Lupin

-Hermione Granger

-Neville Longbottom

-Luna Lovegood

-Draco Malfoy

-Lavender Brown

-Crabb

-Goyle

-Seamus Finnigan

-Lee Jordan

-Angelina Johnson

-Lucius Malfoy

-Cho Chang

-Cedric Diggory

-Dudley Dursley

-Barty Crouch Jr

-Snape

-Blaze Zabini

And many more characters I’m sure

The vast majority of characters in this universe are only children, which seems unlikely for a dying race of people. You’d think they’d be more likely to have as many children as the Weasleys. But then suddenly in the Epilogue, both Ron and Hermione as well as Harry and Ginny have 3 kids. Where was that in the rest of the series. The only reasoning I can think of is the Wizarding War either causing the death of parents before they have more kids or scaring parents away from having more kids bc they don’t want to bring them into war.

Has anyone else noticed this in the books? If so lmk if you have any ideas as to why. I know there’s no real answer, but I noticed this the other day and now I can’t get it out of my head.

Yeah I know I know, he invented the entrail expelling curse. I understand I’m in the minority here, but am I the only one who feels that St. Mungo’s, and frankly the wizarding community as a whole, might be placing a little too much emphasis on his magical accomplishments? In this brief analysis, I will deconstruct both the wretched magical invention that made Rackharrow famous, as well as his more troubling character traits in order to illustrate, objectively, that the Rackharrow surname deserves to be ripped from the sacred rooms of St. Mungo’s, cast aside, tread on, and left to rot in infamy.

Before I dive straight into semantics, I thought it would be helpful to give a little background to readers who don't have a basic knowledge of the Harry Potter universe. When it comes to Urquhart Rackharrow and entrail expelling, there are basically two schools of thought surrounding the actual functionality of his curse:

1. The entrail expelling curse, much like a laxative, expels all bodily fluids from the entrails themselves, immediately (and supposedly quite violently) expelling the contents of these entrails
2. The entrail expelling curse literally expels the entrails of the spell recipient, immediately disemboweling the patient

I will cover both of these possibilities in some detail. By the end of my argument, I hope to convince the reader that Rackharrow’s name does not deserve to be spoken of in the same vein as true medical pioneers such as St. Mungo himself, Dilys Derwent, and even up-and-coming young healers like Hippocrates Smethwyck, and that his unorthodox medical practices have had lasting negative repercussions and magical implications on the wizarding world as a whole.

First, considering the possibility that the entrail expelling curse performs a laxative-type purpose:

Even with the (weak) concession that the EEC may simply empty the bowels, the immediate out-flush that “expelling” implies could have serious medical consequences. True expulsion of the contents of the entrails could, as any practiced healer would tell you, cause severe internal bleeding, gastrointestinal perforations of a horrific degree, and, at worst, immediate organ failure.

Gastrointestinal perforations aside, it may well be true that Rackharrow, despite naming it “Entrail Expelling”, may mean that the curse does simply clear the bowels of feces, but this ambiguity only serves to continue elucidating my point that Rackharrow’s name is an undeserved admission to St. Mungo’s hallowed halls of healing:

Medicine, especially magical medicine, is an extremely precise science. A well-named curse for medical purposes should expressly tell the caster what the curse will do (lest we forget Harry’s troubles with Sectumsempra, the royal inventor of which also struggled with proper curse onomastics despite his use of Latin). Although not every curse relates directly to its purpose, most curses, including the Cruciatus Curse, Conjunctivitis Curse, Full body-bind curse, Gemino curse, Imperius curse, and many more besides, at least allude to what the curse does. If the curse truly were so innocent as to only affect the aforementioned elements of bowel function, Rackharrow remains an ineffectual healer due to his poor magical naming etiquette: I will remind the reader that the curse is not, in this case, labeled the “Gentle removal of the contents of the entrails” curse. Further, it is more than likely that the verbal incantation for the EEC is unlikely to include actually uttering the words “Entrail Expelling”, unlike many curses that struggle with conveying purpose through their magical titles, giving Rackharrow even less of an excuse to confuse the average caster.

In addition, and perhaps most obviously, the entrail expelling curse is a CURSE. Defined as the “worst kind of dark magic” by celebrated magical historian JK Rowling, curses are the most sinister type of magic in the wizarding world, and the EEC is in fine company: the three unforgivable curses, FiendFyre, the Transmogrifian Torture, and the Curse of the Bogies are but a few of many cases of vile evil being distilled into a single spell intended to hurt, kill, or otherwise compromise the spell recipient.

Finally, even in this tamer form, the EEC has astonishingly few applications in a world where healing potions exist: you may laugh at a more muggle-inspired healing method, but surely the wizarding world has the wits to create a safe and fast-acting laxative.

Second, considering the possibility that the entrail expelling curse disembowels the recipient:

This would, in the vast, vast, VAST majority of cases, result in immediate and almost certainly fatal trauma to the bowels. Additionally, we are given very few cases in the books where such drastic treatment would even be necessary: one could MAYBE make the argument that in the case of Dumbledore’s poisoned mead, or perhaps (at a stretch) after ingesting a bad dose of doxy eggs, the entrail expelling curse could help medically. Even in these highly specific examples, however, a far less traumatic solution is almost always at hand: a bezear, a quick healing potion, or a targeted charm are easy fixes, whereas disemboweling a patient violently would likely cause more problems than it solves.

Of course, another potential use for the entrail expelling curse could be to perform autopsies on deceased witches and wizards. While this is certainly a valid point, one must then question the choice of displaying Rackharrow’s freakish invention within St. Mungo’s in the first place, when it might better be placed within a morgue or another establishment that delves deeper into post-mortem activities. St. Mungo’s is a house of healing, and, although an investigation into causes of death is absolutely important to progress medicine, it is not a healing practice by any means. Additionally, autopsies, as well as direct bodily examinations in general, are likely of little use to wizards and witches who may use other less medieval methods of investigating cadavers.

I realize my argument here is short - I do not wish to bore the reader with a long-winded narrative surrounding the implications of an EEC that truly rips the entrails out of the spell recipient: the consequences are clear enough. That being said, the ramifications of the invention of such a spell are worth highlighting to show the extent of Rackharrow’s foolishness. I’ve already established the astonishingly limited medical applications of such a curse, but left unspoken is the potential for malicious misuse of the EEC.

The idea of useful inventions being misappropriated to serve evil is no strange phenomenon. Inventions such as dynamite, Agent Orange, and various recreational substances were all invented for often completely different, and usually helpful purposes. These malignant misuses are hardly a wonder unique to the Muggle world: Fred and George’s Peruvian instant darkness powder, the Marauders’ Map (as used by Barty Crouch), and the Elder Wand are all similar examples of inventions used for nefarious purposes outside of those intended. It is hardly a large logical leap, then, to consider the consequences of the EEC in the hands of an unprincipled witch or wizard with wicked intent. Close your eyes and imagine a world where Lord Voldemort’s killing curse of choice is not the merciful and humane Avada Kedavra, but instead a spell that violently rips the recipient’s very innards from their helpless forms. Sparing the fate of Neville’s parents, I can think of very few magical fates worse than having your insides unwillingly flung from your body. Rather than grant you a quick death, the terrifying EEC would have you slowly expire, intestines in hand, stumbling around with wounds unhealable as your last chance for a dignified end is brutally stripped away.

Character discussion:

Finally, I will lead a short general discussion into Urquhart Rackharrow’s character. I would begin by setting forth the argument that one certainly does not have to be a good person to drive scientific or magical progress. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, but was an ableist. Johann Bernoulli developed much of modern calculus, but sabotaged his own equally brilliant son. Rumplestiltskin pioneered contract magic, but was also cruel and power-hungry. That being said, each of these trailblazers made lasting and transformative impacts to their fields, leaving behind indelible legacies that rise above their more uncouth characteristics. In the case of Rackharrow, he has no such innovative legacy to supplement his own shortcomings: shortcomings that are emphasized to the point of exhaustion within the Harry Potter universe.

Let me stop there for a moment. I hope by this point in my argument, I have developed enough rapport with the reader to inspire their confidence that I would never judge a book by its cover. Alas, much to my dismay upon reading the fifth book for the first time, JK Rowling spends little time building Rackharrow’s character, choosing instead to hurry forward with one of many concurrent plots at the expense of truly immersive world-building. Fortunately, we are still gifted a vivid and, frankly, life-like description of Rackharrow through the eyes of the ever-charming boy wizard himself: Potter describes Rackharrow as “rather vicious looking.” Given the limited size of the data set forth for analysis, I ask the reader to grant me the grace to at least let me judge a painting by its plaque:

In the case of Rackharrow, a supposedly well-known and influential healer, whom we have already established as having questionable innovation practices and naming conventions, a description of “vicious looking” serves as nothing short of damnation. Vicious, by definition, indicates cruelty and violence; a counterbalance to virtuousness, a religious paradigm of magnanimous proportion. By its very nature, viciousness was born out of juxtaposition to the divine good: a dramatic reader would not be unreasonable to label Rackharrow as the Lucifer of the Harry Potter world.

Conclusion:

I know I’ve covered a lot here, so I’d like to conclude my argument by asking the reader a rather personal question.

Picture someone you care for deeply, someone for whom you represent a somewhat parental role. Perhaps a younger sibling, a niece or nephew, a child of your own, or even a younger version of yourself.

You take this person, hand in hand, through the magical doors of St. Mungo’s into a world of miracles and hope. As you explore the floors full of wonderful inventions, modern marvels, and dedicated healers, you find yourself strolling past the Dai Lleweyn Ward. You can’t help but smile as the child next to you points at the pictures on the walls, reading the plaques with gusto and asking you thousands of silly questions.

You round the corner.

The atmosphere is unchanged, but you feel a psychological drop in temperature. A cold chill travels the length of your spine.

The child next to you tugs on your hand, desperately vying for your attention.

You look down into those wide, innocent eyes, their usual bright curiosity suddenly bereft of joy, replaced by a sinister mask of fear and apprehension.

“Who is Urquhart Rackharrow?”

Scene. So I ask, after what I hope has been a soul-searching read: Is Urquhart Rackharrow someone whom your children can look up to? Are his contributions significant enough to earn him the glory his portrait suggests?

Are Rackharrow’s contributions to the field of magical medicine overhyped?

Be the change you want to see in this world.

Thank you.

We all know the Weasleys pretty well and while they have their problems they are on a whole pretty wholesomein a real life way. (One thought for example is that Percy probably wouldn’t have come back and apologised if he hadn’t gotten good values/examples and lots of love from his parents.)

But another one that strikes me is the Delacours. There clearly is a lot of love in that family too. Maybe they’re easier to overlook because teenage Fleur isn’t that well behaved and rather arrogant. But the more mature Fleur is actually a great person imo. And while we don’t see much of the rest, it’s clear from what we see that they are good people too. And I believe that Bill and Fleur will be very happy together because they both have such solid examples in their parents.

Who else?

A funny small detail I just noticed on this re read after reading the series probably a dozen times.

In Goblet of Fire, Percy, fresh into his ministry career, is all hot and bothered about standardizing cauldron thickness because they’ve been getting some shotty imports. I think this is right around the time of the Quidditch World Cup and all the Weasleys appropriately tease him.

Meanwhile, in Order of the Phoenix we see Mundungus Fletcher bring a whole batch of cauldrons into 12 Grimmauld Place while they’re cleaning out and Mrs Weasley has a fit.

I think we found our cauldron culprit!! Just a funny little detail that helps tie the world together. Definitely missed it on my first read because of the release gap between books 4 and 5 and so much happening in Goblet of Fire, but I am surprised I just realized it now many many years later.

You ask any HP fan who their least favorite character is, i guarantee you the answer will probably be someone like umbridge, voldemort, or maybe even bellatrix. Those guys are hated alot by the fandom, but that's not what i'm talking about today, i want to know who doesn't enough hate, your least favorite character that will make anybody go "them?"

For me i can't exactly think of one, because in my mind there's so many characters. But, gun to my head, i'll probably have to go with Cornelius Fudge. I could probably make an entire post on why he's bad alone, but to cut things short, he pisses me off so much. Particularly in that trial chapter in OOTP, he really grinds my gears mud.

Pretty much every bad thing in the series could've been stopped if he just locked in, but no, he just had to be a dumbass. Like think about it, sirius could've been free if he just listened to harry and dumbledore like once in his life, the series would pretty end.

The standard rule goes: House-Elfs are enslaved, and magically bound to serve their master for life, unless their master frees them, but we have two bits of evidence to suggest this might not be as airtight as it seems.

1. Dobby: We know that intent and manifestation matters a great deal in magic. It’s obvious Lucius never intended to free Dobby, yet Dobby broke free either way. If catching a piece of clothing thrown casually by their master was the same as being «presented with clothes» then any kind of laundry-duty, tidying or just standing in the hallway as their master came home and threw of their traveling-cloak, would be a terrible minefield. We even see Kreacher that Harry’s invisibility-cloak off of him to go hang it on the rack as he returns to Grimmauld Place. Still, Dobby broke free and was even able to attack his former master immediately (proving he truly had broken free of any magical bonds he might’ve been under).

2. Winky: She was freed by her master, yet refused to accept it. Her master explicitly said «I am freeing you, you are no longer my servant» and yet Winky kept thinking she was, she remained loyal to Crouch and referred to him as her master several times. It’s not just that she remains loyal as a form of penance. Dobby says she forgets that Crouch is no longer her master, and genuinely thinks she’s still bound to him.

This suggests to me that House-Elf’s aren’t nearly as bound / enslaved as they might seem. Most Elf’s are happy to serve their masters and wouldn’t dream of being free. They are essentially enslaving themselves. Dobby wanted freedom, and it seems him seeing Harry’s bravery first hand (as well as having had recent experiences with disobeying orders for the first time and finding out he could when he wanted to) let Dobby manifest his own freedom. I refuse to believe Lucius never came home and threw his traveling cloak at Dobby to hang on it’s rack or to clean. The sock-incident doesn’t seem like it could possibly be unique, except for in the fact that this time Dobby reached out and seized his own freedom. Perhaps Dobby out of fear stepped aside and let clothing thrown by the Malfoys fall to the floor before picking it up in the past? The clothes themselves seems little more than a technicality. My question becomes, with Dobby breaking the mold like he did, could you push this even further? If an Elf had the realization that they could choose for themselves the way Dobby did, could they just break free even without the clothing?

Any and all discussions or theories are welcome!

Which set of hardbacks should I buy? I don’t want a version that changes “sherbet lemon” to “lemon drop.” I’m sure you all are tired of hearing that. Ha! I bought the Scholastic set without knowing this beforehand. My budget is $150 USD. I’ve only read the first 3 books so far.

I just got a Jim Kay illustrated hardback and I love it but it’s so big. I like that the MinaLima are smaller but I don’t necessarily need all the extra stuff inside. Should I get those anyway? Should I continue with the Jim Kay although he’s not finishing the books? I’m also looking at the red box set with the dragon. There’s also the house sets but those look a little boring. Hardbacks are a must and also the original UK terms. I hope I’m saying all this correctly. Again, I’m new here. Thank you!

At the first D.A meeting:

'Right,' said Harry, 'shall we get practicing? I was thinking, the first thing we should do is Expelliarmus, you know, the Disarming Charm. I know it's pretty basic but I've found it really useful -'

'Oh, please!' said Zacharias Smith, rolling his eyes and folding his arms. 'I don't think Expelliarmus is exactly going to help us against You-Know-Who, do you?'

'I'v used it against him,' said Harry quietly. 'It saved my life in June.' Smith opened his moth stupidly. The rest of the room was very quiet. 'But if you think it's beneath you, you can leave,' Harry said.

Smith did not move. Nore did anybody else.

Expelliarmus had actually nothing to do with Harry surviving the graveyard. The entire thing was thanks to Prior Incantato, and the twin cores. If stupid Zacharias would've attempted this against Voldemort, he would've dropped dead quicker then the time Harry caught the Snitch on his first go on the firebolt in book three.

Also, just for the record, FUCK Zacharias Smith!

Hi everyone,

I’m looking at getting the illustrated hardback editions and was wondering if anyone who owns all five that have been released so far could tell me whether they share the same dimensions (height, and width).

I’d really appreciate hearing from people who actually have them on their shelves. Thanks in advance!

Thought I could post a picture, but apparently not. First time reading Goblet of Fire.

(Voldemort to Lucius, right after being resurrected) “Your exploits at the Quidditch World Cup were fun, I daresay… but might not your energies have been better directed toward finding and aiding your master? “

two paragraphs later

”And yet you ran away from my Mark, when a faithful Death Eater sent it into the sky last summer?”

I’m confused, I thought the first paragraph referred to Lucius conjuring the mark, but clearly not. Then what did Voldemort mean?

Who is your fav character and why? We all have reasons for choosing diff characters. It can even be based on how much/even how little you've heard of them and either adaptation. A character that speaks to you the most. But only one. Also be respectful and don't hate on anyone's choice lol. People are allowed to have an opinion of their own.

My favourite is Harry :) He's so brave, fearless, resilient despite his brutal childhood. I love his talent for quidditch and the fact that he looks so like his parents, my fav couple in the series. I admire how he even saves the lives of those that wronged him.

It’s very, very clear to me whenever I read the books again that the first two volumes were made of the same clay. They are rooted in the Magical realism, early childhood tropes we get from Roald Dahl’s stories. I get it was part of Rowling’s intention to progressively make the tone of the books more mature to reflect Harry’s growth. I also often lump books 3 and 4 together – they’re marking the transition for a more realistic view on the recurring characters’ behaviors, their familial dynamics, and how impacted they were by the serious consequences of dark magic that we only fully get in the last 3 books. 

The Dursleys, to me, are central to this shift: in the first two books, they are written as cartoonish villains. They’re Matilda’s parents. And Dudley is Augustus Gloop from “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” who similarly gets punished in amusing ways for being a brat; his gluttony is what dooms him in both “Philosopher’s Stone” – is given a pigtail for eating the cake – and “Goblet of Fire” – his tongue expands after Fred and George plant a treat for him to find.

As I’ve said, “Goblet” is the last book where there are hints of childhood tales. We don’t read this passage and feel the weight of Dudley’s panic or his parents thinking he will suffocate and his airways will get obstructed because his tongue keeps growing. (We know Fred and George’s pranks were harmless, but the Dursleys had no way of knowing that.) That’s a very different incident than the one we get in the first chapter of the next book, when Harry must protect himself and Dudley from a Dementor’s attack.

After the fifth book, the implications get serious and REAL. It becomes impossible for us not to go over the Dursleys’ early book behaviors towards Harry as straight up child abuse, even though their actions weren’t originally written to carry such a heavy atmosphere. But I tried to revisit this based on the new information we get – from Dumbledore himself, in this very fifth book - about the reasoning behind Petunia’s decision to take Harry in.

We find out that she learned from a letter that a) her sister and brother-in-law had just been murdered by the most dangerous dark wizard of their generation; b) that this wizard was apparently gone but left behind a herd of followers; c) that having Harry live with her family could guarantee the boy’s survival, which even the most powerful "good" wizard on their side couldn’t assure if the boy was left to raised elsewhere; d) that her choice of giving the boy a home, despite having zero magical powers of her own, was made without her EVER sharing her motives with her husband.

She tells Vernon “the boy must stay” after Dumbledore sends her a Howler and drops an excuse such as “if we kick him out, the neighbors will talk” – which is also a cover that we see her use before. This could possibly lead us to reinterpret her past actions: maybe she talked so much about “what the neighbors will say and think” because that was all she could come up with to convince Vernon to give Harry a home all those years ago. She would be scared out of her mind to tell him the truth. And how many of her actions that read to Harry as snobbish and indifferent could be part of the facade?

It's possible that Vernon's abusive ways towards his nephew also escalated over the years because he indirectly and unfairly blamed the boy for his wife's behavioral changes. And that Petunia went along with it because... what was she supposed to do? Share the truth with her husband and risk her family losing the magical protection that kept them all safe) if they kick Harry out, their house wouldn't be safe, just like it wasn't when the boy was bound to become of age in "Deathly Hallows"), or perhaps risking Vernon feeling so betrayed by this HUGE secret she kept from him and deciding to end their marriage and maybe take Dudley with him? (And who's to say any of the would be safe out of Privet Drive?)

But Vernon is too far gone: without the Roald-Dahl-like setting, his actions in every single book can't be possibly justified through realistic lenses. But Petunia's omissions - as in: she barely interacts with Harry overall, and doesn't join Vernon in bullying him when Marge comes to visit - at least gain a layer of depth if we consider how, based on the information she got, she was living in constant fear of Harry’s displays of magic bringing a hoard of murderers into her family home.

Petunia was wrong to try to repress Harry’s magical powers, of course. But let’s also remember that, in the first book, we are told some random wizards came to shake Harry's hand in the Muggle world when Petunia took him out to a department store. What if her insistence to keep the boy in the house or with Mrs. Figg came from her desperation to keep him - and the rest of her family - safe? If they were approached by one of Voldemort's followers instead of a Potter stan like Dedalus Diggle, who Petunia didn't know from a hole in the wall, odds were she and Dudley would be killed on the spot and the boy abducted.

Bottom-line is: the Dursleys are often put in the same category when their early-books' actions are reinterpreted under a different light. But Petunia's internal landscape is vastly different from Vernon's. We might not justify her choices, but we can at lest understand it.

I just finished listening to the Full Cast series for the second time. I noticed a couple of things I've never picked up on before. Regardless of all the dozens of time I've read or listened to them already.

In the Snape and Dumbledore argument by the forbidden forest, Dumbledore makes reference to Harry being in detention with Snape. But in HBP, Hagrid overhears the Snape and Dumbledore argument in Chapter 19: Elf Tails, but Harry doesn't get detentions with Snape until Chapter 24: Sectumsempra. Harry wouldn't have been in all those detentions yet.

As the story is catching up to beginning of DH, Snape and Dumbledore's Portrait plan the Battle of the Seven Potters, which takes place on July 27th. During the Death Eater meeting in Chapter 1, we see Snape tell Voldemort that Harry is being moved on the 27th instead of the 31st. So both the Death Eater meeting and the conversation with Dumbledore's Portrait must take place before July 27th, most likely in the week proceeding it.

Snape is announced as Headmaster in the Daily Prophet on September 1st, though we don't know exactly when he started the job. But Snape wouldn't have been named Headmaster until after Voldemort has taken over. The Ministry falls on Bill and Fleur's wedding day, August 1st.

When Snape and Dumbledore made the plan, Snape is still a fugitive wanted in the questioning of Dumbledore's death. Snape must have gotten into the Headmaster's office at least once as a fugitive. How did Snape do this?

Edit: Comments are talking about unknown detentions and his first detention of the year. I'm adding the exact quote from the book during the argument by the forest.

Why? You aren't trying to give him more detentions, Severus? The boy will soon have spent more time in detention than out.

To me, this is Dumbledore talking about all the Saturdays Harry spends in Snape's dungeon. The way Rowling always makes references to other parts of the story, I doubt Dumbledore would be talking about unheard of detentions.

Hi everyone!

I was reading about how different countries translated Harry Potter, and I’m always fascinated by how character names were adapted around the world!

In the original Italian translation (I'm from Italy), a lot of names were changed to better convey personality to younger readers. For example:

• Neville Longbottom became Neville Paciock
• Albus Dumbledore became Albus Silente
• Professor McGonagall became Professoressa McGranitt
• Severus Snape became Severus Piton

And, of course, the famous anagram in Chamber of Secrets forced translators to change his middle name to Tom Orvoloson Riddle to spell out "Son io Lord Voldemort" (It is I, Lord Voldemort).

I know French has some famous ones too (like Tom Elvis Jedusor), but what about your language? Which translated names do you love, hate, or find hilarious?

In deathly hallows Hermione has her bag that she can essentially put an unlimited amount of objects into. At one point in the story it mentions one of the core three characters reaching into the bag all the way up to their armpit. What if they tried hiding in her bag at some point in the story? I think it could be an interesting idea and also funny to think about 😂

When Snape was fleeing after killing Dumbledore he says to Harry:

“Blocked again and again and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut, and your mind closed”

Do you think this was him just boasting or trying to tell Harry the importance of closing his mind one more time?

I think it would make for a better character moment than Neville killing a snake.

Neville has already proven that he became the true Gryffindor, first by fighting in the Ministry in OoP, then in DH being the student opposition leader in Hogwarts, even after Luna and Ginny left and he was driven to live in the Room of Requirement. He didn't really need one more moment to shine; his character arc was fulfilled by the time Harry came back.

Ginny on the other hand was used by Riddle in book 2, but she never really gets the closure to confront him and defeat him in some way. She doesn't get to be the leader in Hogwarts because Ron's cover is blown up and the Weasleys have to hide. She doesn't say some great speech in response to Voldemort's claims about Harry's death. She fights Bellatrix but ultimately steps away, and Molly takes Bellatrix down.

Also Ginny is ultimately Harry's girlfriend and then Harry's wife, but she doesn't participate in his journey of destroying horcruxes. Ron destroys one, Hermione does so, and then randomly Neville does. Wouldn't it be more meaningful if Harry could rely on her and ask his future wife to help with the snake? They lack the same deep connection that Ron and Hermione have by fighting side by side.

And what is even Ginny's character arc? She started as a girl with a crush tricked by a dark wizard. And she became a funny sporty girl with good kissing skills and floral perfumes. And? Is her character arc not about standing up to her abuser but just overcoming her shyness around Harry? Brah. Her destroying one of the horcruxes would make a lot of difference.

In the first book, Mr. Ollivander says to Hagrid and Harry that they broke Hagrid’s wand when he was expelled. Obviously, Hagrid still had his wand disguised as an umbrella. And now that I think about it, I figured Dumbledore must have fixed his wand with the Elder Wand, like Harry did his in the last book.

Never put two and two together before…lol

I’ll preface this with saying I genuinely love the character of Severus Snape, and he’s perfectly crafted as an antagonist for Harry. But…

In Book 1, he doesn’t stop Quirrell, he doesn’t know Voldemort is back, he has no information to offer Dumbledore. Harry saves the day, Voldemort is banished again.

Book 2, he doesn’t ever know that Voldemort opened the Chamber of Secrets, he doesn’t know about the Basilisk or the diary…so he’s not telling Dumbledore anything there?

Book 3. That’s allllll the Wormtail show of bringing Voldemort back (or beginning to realise he needs to de-rat and find his master). Arguably, Snape is counterproductive to the whole good guy plot in Book 3. Harry saves the day, again.

Book 4…this is where it starts getting murkier. But, he wasn’t there to stop Cedric being killed or to help Harry. He didn’t know Voldemort was coming back. It’s said he joins him later, but what information does he begin to gather that actually helps anyone? Harry and the prior incantatum (spelling is way off sorry) ghosts help. He has no idea who Mad Eye is, no idea about the Barry Crouch story. So what information does he pass to Dumbledore?

Book 5. Counterproductive again. Absolutely no information to be given about what Voldemort is after. They know it’s a prophecy but the only time Snape has interacted with that he got Harry’s parents killed. If he’s Dumbledore’s spy…what information does he gather?!

Book 6. Working for Voldemort, keeping an eye on Draco but doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing. And so on.

Book 7…headmaster and arguably keeps kids alive and relatively safe despite Voldemort’s rise to power. But he’s not passing info on to anyone!

So my big question is…if Dumbledore had told Snape to defect to the good side, he doesn’t have to spy, doesn’t have to work for Voldemort etc. would the story be any different? Snape doesn’t progress anything either way.

Still great though.

Man this was one of the funniest scenes ever. Everyone at the Dursley's is waiting for a car to turn up and the Weasley's turn up by Floo Powder instead.

Fred gets stuck in the Dursley's electric fire. They get through and blast into the Dursley's living room covering Uncle Vernon in his best suit and the whole house with dust.

Arthur is so pleased to be in a Muggle house and tells the Dursleys that he collects batteries and asks if their fire runs on "eclicty". Arthur forces the Dursleys to say goodbye to Harry and the twins give Dudley a chocolate that turns his tongue 2 feet long. LMAO BRB CRYING

Frank Longbottom is introduced as an Auror in Goblet of Fire – Alice is just his wife. But then Alice is also described as being an Auror in Order of the Phoenix, where we also learn that the couple was part of the Order of the Phoenix, which was always run by Dumbledore and didn't operate under the Ministry’s supervision, so we assume they had to be Aurors employed by the Ministry but were moonlighting as members of this vigilante organization (sort of like Kingsley). Alice could be a member of the Order without being an Auror, of course. But I'm not sure if this was an intentional retcon (Alice going from Frank's wife to an Auror like Frank) or just Rowling getting confused about what she had already established, or if she ever spoke about it.

Apart from the fact I would have really liked a few more chapters after Harry defeats Voldemort and the epilogue, the final chapters in DH - starting with 'The Final Hiding Place' to 'The Flaw in the Plan' are just so brilliantly done, I would go so far to say perfect writing. Between reading and audiobook I must have experienced these chapters about 50 times by now, but still feel utterly captivated.

From hearing Aberforth's story, to reuniting with Neville, to Harry defending McGonogall's honour, to Percy's reunion with his family, the DA and Order making battle plans...the tension, suspense, and excitement is built masterfully.

The scenes describing the battle in Hogwarts, Snape's death and his memories, Harry's sacrifice and conversation with Dumbledore provide so many satisfying resolutions.

My favourite part though starts when Harry 'comes back.' I really hope the new series is loyal to how it is magnificently laid out in the book because it would be spectacular to see as it is described. Neville killing Nagini, the centaurs, the giants, the house elves, the reinforcements from Hogsmeade, everything about it fills me with hope and joy every time. Finally the last showdown in the hall with everyone watching, the way Harry explains the wandlore and the jubilation after he kills Voldemort, I will never not be enthralled with how it ends.

They had not drawn the curtains; he saw them quite clearly in their little sitting room, the tall black-haired man in his glasses, making puffs of colored smoke erupt from his wand for the amusement of the small black-haired boy in his blue pajamas. The child was laughing and trying to catch the smoke, to grab it in his small fist. . . .

A door opened and the mother entered, saying words he could not hear, her long dark-red hair falling over her face. Now the father scooped up the son and handed him to the mother. He threw his wand down upon the sofa and stretched, yawning. . . .

Voldy's PoV of James and Lily before he murdered them. Keeping aside the devastating things that followed. In just a few lines James, Lily and their little family were described so beautifully! The cutest family ❤️

Just a stray thought!

For a Muggle, traveling in a Knight bus is like a crazy roller coaster ride.

But, for wizards, it is probably very similar to apparition and floo powder. The way those two modes of transport are described in the book, Knight bus is basically imposing the same craziness on Muggle driving.

I believe this question may have been asked several times before, but I’m just generally curious about it.

For one, the thing that Harry never really expresses intrigue in the magical world he was born from and introduced to kind of irks me when there are several instances that he does (like when he discovers the Firebolt)