On Seekers
I was wrong, Krum was not the only seeker ever to catch the snitch while losing the game ... Ginny does it in her first game as seeker, against Hufflepuff in book 5. |
Muggle Matters Home
About our site
Make Site Suggestions
Narrative defined (Merlin)
Silver & Gold (Merlin)
Elendil's Sword (Pauli)
"X" Marks/Chiasm (Merlin)
Literary Approaches (Merlin)
We hope you enjoy reading our Harry Potter discussion weblog. Please feel free to leave a comment and return often for more discussion.
Rialb on Slugs and Slughorn
Umbridge's Shadow
Earth and Sky: The Divided House of the Seekers
The 8th Horcrux: The Scar and Last Things
Number 4 Privet Drive and the Order of the Seeker:...
Remembering the X
The Toads Tacky Tastes
Blast Ended Slugs in Books 2 and 6
Peeves: The Ghost-world's "Polter-Crux"
Hagrid's a Goner in Book 7
I was wrong, Krum was not the only seeker ever to catch the snitch while losing the game ... Ginny does it in her first game as seeker, against Hufflepuff in book 5. |
Comments on "On Seekers"
oh i love a good 'admission of wrong-neww'.
:)
jo
Merlin's a stickler for accuracy.
hehehe. of course i meant wrong-neSS didn't i.....
Well, I only did it because it fit with all my theories of how important the image is and that Ginny is Harry's soul mate (technically - the connection with the golden snitch and Golden Soul) ... of course, a logical flow is that it might be a sign that Harry, in the end, will become the Golden Soul at the cost of his life. - but I'm hoping for a different solution :)
But you see, I was really only showing that I was right about something else :) LOL aren't perfectionists such crazy and insufferable bugger? LOL
One of Merlin's movie moments he identifies most with as a stickler for detail:
Mel Gibson as Jerry in "Conspiracy Theory" telling Julia Roberts that all the assassins were named in the press by all 3 names, and she points out John Hinkley, and he replies, slowly and thoughtfully, "yeah, but Hinkley only shot Reagan, I'm pretty sure if he had killed him we would hav known his middle names."
I think myself must be living proof that sticklers for details are nutters ... but we do have our place LOL
(next week I'm learning joined-up writing :) - 50 points to the house of whoever remembers who that is a reference to)
lol, merlin
jo
Harry did it, too, didn't he? In an early book, I believe.
not sure if Harry did it ... I started "Re-reading" with book 4 so it has been a while since I read the actual Quidditch matches in the first 3 books
They lost the Hufflepuff game in book 3 because of falling off of his broom, so he didn't catch the snitch at all that game, which kind of plays into the whole thing of the character of Cedric and House Hufflepuff in book 4.
It would be interesting if he did ... I just assumed that because in book 4 the very idea of the winning team not having the snitch seemed so foreign to Bagman's mind that it must be a fairly rare occurrence - but if you found a match in which Harry did it in the first few books, that would definitely be interesting.
awww, c'mon Jo, you just re-read book 5, you should be commenting who the reference was to so you can get the 50 points for House Australia :)
I had totally forgotten myself that the nutter was in there till I re-read/listened to it.
well of course it's lockhart isn't it? are you sure that's worth 50 points?
:P
jo
50 points to House Australia
seeing as before re-reading "Christmas on the Closed Ward" I would have answered with a resounding "hunh???" I think it should definitely be worth 50 points.
But also I spent several hours reading some very long pieces by a guy that were, if a bit cranky, brilliant. And that indicate Lockhart's presence in book 5 may be more than random, that it may be a clue to how to kill Voldy (and so remembering that Lockhart appeared in book 5 is very worth points, and in that phrasing just now there is a clue to what he is talking about ... but, when the link goes up you can read his "revised changling theory" essay ... but I warn you, it is even longer than my stuff :) ).
I have a big addendum coming to my "literary approaches" post that I will point out with a new post ... this guys stuff that Pauli sent me is huge to the understanding of the books (especially as "incarnational" literature).
I'm simply a stickler for detail, this guy I'm talking about actually has the goods on the details
To give referral credit, the "red-hen" post to which I believe Merlin is referring came by way of My Boaz's Ruth in the Umbridge post.
aussie aussie aussie. oi oi oi
:)
can't wait for a spare hour or two to read through the intriguing sounding material.
jo