Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.harry-potter » Grindelwald
Grindelwald [message #231454] Fr, 10 März 2006 16:55
wadkin2000  
Jo has said that DD defeated the dark wizard Grindelwald (she makes
particular note of pronouncing the "w" as a "v", i.e., Grindelvald) in
1945 and when asked, she did say that he was dead but hedged when asked
if he was important or not (from the Leaky Cauldron interview in 2005).
I know she likes to draw parallels with the wizarding and muggle world
and maybe there isn't any more of a devious connection here. However,
she has also said that Voldemort is the most powerful wizard for
hundreds of years. Now, my "realm of mythical theories" is this:
Grindelwald has made a horcrux (for sake of argument, let's assume just
one). DD defeats the human form of Grindelwald but his spectral form
lives on (similar to what happened to Voldemort after the AK
rebounded). When Voldemort goes to immerse himself in the dark arts, he
and the spectral form of Grindelwald find each other. We know that
when Voldemort was in this phase, he tried possessing snakes and wanted
to possess Bertha Jorkins (but couldn't because he messed her up so
much!) So bottom line, what if the whisper of life that was Grindelwald
is in Voldemort?
Re: Grindelwald [message #231462 ] Fr, 10 März 2006 17:52
tbarry22  
If JKR specifically said he is dead, then he is dead, period. He
doesn't exist in any form. She is very careful when she selects her
words, and dead means just that, dead.
Re: Grindelwald [message #231465 ] Fr, 10 März 2006 18:29
wadkin2000  
tbarry22 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> If JKR specifically said he is dead, then he is dead, period. He
> doesn't exist in any form. She is very careful when she selects her
> words, and dead means just that, dead.


I understand what you're saying. However, IMO, when I read the entire
interview, I had the feeling that her comments were suspect (but you
could be right, I could be reading more into it than is there).
Starting to see conspiracy theories everywhere!
Re: Grindelwald [message #231482 ] Fr, 10 März 2006 21:08
lastexit99  
Could it be that she "hedged her bets" because, how does a wizard kill
a wizard without using AD. Maybe the important part is how did DD kill
Grindelwald.
Re: Grindelwald [message #231484 ] Fr, 10 März 2006 21:16
chappy  
lastexit99 wrote:
> Could it be that she "hedged her bets" because, how does a wizard kill
> a wizard without using AD. Maybe the important part is how did DD kill
> Grindelwald.

Maybe he cut his head off or said,"Accio heart!".
Re: Grindelwald [message #231492 ] Fr, 10 März 2006 21:57
Brent Braten  
"chappy" <chappy2235 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142021816.880539.131910 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> lastexit99 wrote:
> > Could it be that she "hedged her bets" because, how does a wizard kill
> > a wizard without using AD. Maybe the important part is how did DD kill
> > Grindelwald.
>
> Maybe he cut his head off or said,"Accio heart!".
>
Nah,

I'm thinking Dumbledore would not not use the AK curse. Neither would he go
in for anything tyoo messy/gruesom. My person feeling is that it has
something to do with that mysterious room in the Department of Mysteries.

It will be interesting to see how she does it but I do know that if it was
me, I wouldn't kill to simply kill someone - to get it over and done with.
Neither would I kill to save myself (not enough selfless motivation to
justify it). If it was me, I would only kill to save another's life. I'm
sorry of that sounds a tad sappy to some of you but I have a feeling that
for Harry to be able to kill Tom Riddle without permanently damaging his own
soul he will have to tap directly into his most powerful weapon, his "saving
people thing"

Brent
Re: Grindelwald [message #231496 ] Fr, 10 März 2006 22:37
wadkin2000  
Brent Braten wrote:
> "chappy" <chappy2235 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1142021816.880539.131910 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > lastexit99 wrote:
> > > Could it be that she "hedged her bets" because, how does a wizard kill
> > > a wizard without using AD. Maybe the important part is how did DD kill
> > > Grindelwald.
> >
> > Maybe he cut his head off or said,"Accio heart!".
> >
> Nah,
>
> I'm thinking Dumbledore would not not use the AK curse. Neither would he go
> in for anything tyoo messy/gruesom. My person feeling is that it has
> something to do with that mysterious room in the Department of Mysteries.
>
> It will be interesting to see how she does it but I do know that if it was
> me, I wouldn't kill to simply kill someone - to get it over and done with.
> Neither would I kill to save myself (not enough selfless motivation to
> justify it). If it was me, I would only kill to save another's life. I'm
> sorry of that sounds a tad sappy to some of you but I have a feeling that
> for Harry to be able to kill Tom Riddle without permanently damaging his own
> soul he will have to tap directly into his most powerful weapon, his "saving
> people thing"
>
> Brent


You definitely could have a point. I really don't think that Harry has
enough "wizard" knowledge or experience yet to defeat Voldemort in
"combat", unless, as McGonagal says,"by sheer dumb luck!" I think
ultimately he will win by using his brain and his heart.
Re: Grindelwald [message #231497 ] Fr, 10 März 2006 22:45
wadkin2000  
Brent Braten wrote:
> "chappy" <chappy2235 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1142021816.880539.131910 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > lastexit99 wrote:
> > > Could it be that she "hedged her bets" because, how does a wizard kill
> > > a wizard without using AD. Maybe the important part is how did DD kill
> > > Grindelwald.
> >
> > Maybe he cut his head off or said,"Accio heart!".
> >
> Nah,
>
> I'm thinking Dumbledore would not not use the AK curse. Neither would he go
> in for anything tyoo messy/gruesom. My person feeling is that it has
> something to do with that mysterious room in the Department of Mysteries.
>
> It will be interesting to see how she does it but I do know that if it was
> me, I wouldn't kill to simply kill someone - to get it over and done with.
> Neither would I kill to save myself (not enough selfless motivation to
> justify it). If it was me, I would only kill to save another's life. I'm
> sorry of that sounds a tad sappy to some of you but I have a feeling that
> for Harry to be able to kill Tom Riddle without permanently damaging his own
> soul he will have to tap directly into his most powerful weapon, his "saving
> people thing"
>
> Brent


You could definitely have a point. Regarding DD and the AK curse, I
too, feel that it wouldn't be in character for him to use it. Maybe
there was some other way in which he defeated Grindelwald. As far as
Harry goes, I also feel that Harry will have to get rid of the human
form of Voldemort without combat (as much as I would love to see a
knock down drag out battle between the two of them!). I don't think
Harry has amassed enough general "wizard" knowledge and experience to
enable him to defeat Voldemort in that manner. If he does, IMO, it
will be as McGonagal said in COS, "by sheer dumb luck!"
Re: Grindelwald [message #231504 ] Fr, 10 März 2006 23:56
Fish Eye no Miko  
wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com wrote:

> Jo has said that DD defeated the dark wizard Grindelwald (she makes
> particular note of pronouncing the "w" as a "v", i.e., Grindelvald)
> in 1945 and when asked, she did say that he was dead but hedged
> when asked if he was important or not (from the Leaky Cauldron
> interview in 2005). I know she likes to draw parallels with the
> wizarding and muggle world and maybe there isn't any more of a
> devious connection here.

How would drawing a parallel to the muggle world hint that there's a more
"devious connection"? What's the connection?

> However, she has also said that Voldemort is the most powerful
> wizard for hundreds of years. Now, my "realm of mythical
> theories" is this: Grindelwald has made a horcrux (for sake of
> argument, let's assume just one). DD defeats the human form
> of Grindelwald but his spectral form lives on (similar to what
> happened to Voldemort after the AK rebounded).

But then why, in the 50+ years since then, haven't there been any stories
of Ol Grindy trying to get his body back like V did?

Catherine Johnson.
--
"Damn it, there's so many idiots whose asses I have to kick! I'll have to
start carrying a list just to keep track of them all!"
-Edward Elric, _FullMetal Alchemist_.
Re: Grindelwald [message #231531 ] Sa, 11 März 2006 05:14
wadkin2000  
Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Jo has said that DD defeated the dark wizard Grindelwald (she makes
> > particular note of pronouncing the "w" as a "v", i.e., Grindelvald)
> > in 1945 and when asked, she did say that he was dead but hedged
> > when asked if he was important or not (from the Leaky Cauldron
> > interview in 2005). I know she likes to draw parallels with the
> > wizarding and muggle world and maybe there isn't any more of a
> > devious connection here.
>
> How would drawing a parallel to the muggle world hint that there's a more
> "devious connection"? What's the connection?
>
> > However, she has also said that Voldemort is the most powerful
> > wizard for hundreds of years. Now, my "realm of mythical
> > theories" is this: Grindelwald has made a horcrux (for sake of
> > argument, let's assume just one). DD defeats the human form
> > of Grindelwald but his spectral form lives on (similar to what
> > happened to Voldemort after the AK rebounded).
>
> But then why, in the 50+ years since then, haven't there been any stories
> of Ol Grindy trying to get his body back like V did?
>
> Catherine Johnson.
> --
> "Damn it, there's so many idiots whose asses I have to kick! I'll have to
> start carrying a list just to keep track of them all!"
> -Edward Elric, _FullMetal Alchemist_.


Sorry, Catherine, I don't think I explained myself well. (And maybe I'm
not now either!). What I meant to say was that in addition to the
connection of Grindelwald's defeat by DD in 1945 with the end of WWII,
there might also be a connection between Grindelwald's defeat and
Voldemort in the manner that I stated above. I say this only because
she makes note of pronouncing Grindelwald with a "v" and hedging when
asked if he was important or not to the books.
Re: Grindelwald [message #231533 ] Sa, 11 März 2006 05:23
Fish Eye no Miko  
wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com wrote:

> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>> wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Jo has said that DD defeated the dark wizard Grindelwald (she
>>> makes particular note of pronouncing the "w" as a "v", i.e.,
>>> Grindelvald) in 1945 and when asked, she did say that he was
>>> dead but hedged when asked if he was important or not (from
>>> the Leaky Cauldron interview in 2005). I know she likes to draw
>>> parallels
>>> with the wizarding and muggle world and maybe there isn't any
>>> more of a devious connection here.
>>
>> How would drawing a parallel to the muggle world hint that there's
>> a more "devious connection"? What's the connection?
>>
> Sorry, Catherine, I don't think I explained myself well. (And maybe
> I'm not now either!). What I meant to say was that in addition to
> the connection of Grindelwald's defeat by DD in 1945 with the end
> of WWII, there might also be a connection between Grindelwald's
> defeat and Voldemort in the manner that I stated above. I say this
> only because she makes note of pronouncing Grindelwald with a "v"

Which would mean she's emphasizing the German pronunciation of it. Seeing
as he was an evil wizard defeated in 1945, I think the connection to WWII
and the fall of Nazi Germany seems to be the point of that pronunciation.

Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"I'm the impish officer of death."
-Mike Nelson, _Mystery Science Theater 3000_.
Re: Grindelwald [message #231534 ] Sa, 11 März 2006 05:36
chappy  
Brent Braten wrote:
> "chappy" <chappy2235 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1142021816.880539.131910 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > lastexit99 wrote:
> > > Could it be that she "hedged her bets" because, how does a wizard kill
> > > a wizard without using AD. Maybe the important part is how did DD kill
> > > Grindelwald.
> >
> > Maybe he cut his head off or said,"Accio heart!".
> >
> Nah,
>
> I'm thinking Dumbledore would not not use the AK curse. Neither would he go
> in for anything tyoo messy/gruesom. My person feeling is that it has
> something to do with that mysterious room in the Department of Mysteries.
>
> It will be interesting to see how she does it but I do know that if it was
> me, I wouldn't kill to simply kill someone - to get it over and done with.
> Neither would I kill to save myself (not enough selfless motivation to
> justify it). If it was me, I would only kill to save another's life. I'm
> sorry of that sounds a tad sappy to some of you but I have a feeling that
> for Harry to be able to kill Tom Riddle without permanently damaging his own
> soul he will have to tap directly into his most powerful weapon, his "saving
> people thing"
>
> Brent

My point was that there are lots of ways to kill a wizard. AK is just
a magical way to do it that can't be blocked other than by Harry
(twice). Dumbeldore may not have even killed him. He defeated him and
maybe he is just a random dude in Azkaban that will join Voldemort.
Re: Grindelwald [message #231537 ] Sa, 11 März 2006 05:53
Baronjosefr  
"lastexit99" <lastexit99 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142021290.629759.236860 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Could it be that she "hedged her bets" because, how does a wizard kill
> a wizard without using AD. Maybe the important part is how did DD kill
> Grindelwald.
>
I don't think DD killed him, as that isn't the wording Rowling used to
describe the encounter. She used the word "defeat". And then in OOTP DD
comments, "we both know there are other ways of destroying someone, Tom.". I
believe he was referring to Grindewald, and I believe we will discover
exactly what occurred
Re: Grindelwald [message #231555 ] Sa, 11 März 2006 10:50
Toon  
On 10 Mar 2006 12:08:10 -0800, "lastexit99" <lastexit99 [at] yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Could it be that she "hedged her bets" because, how does a wizard kill
>a wizard without using AD. Maybe the important part is how did DD kill
>Grindelwald.

Kindness. I think Voldie trained under Grinny.
Re: Grindelwald [message #231556 ] Sa, 11 März 2006 10:51
Toon  
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:57:07 -0700, "Brent Braten"
<bbraten [at] bresnan.net> wrote:

>
>"chappy" <chappy2235 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1142021816.880539.131910 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> lastexit99 wrote:
>> > Could it be that she "hedged her bets" because, how does a wizard kill
>> > a wizard without using AD. Maybe the important part is how did DD kill
>> > Grindelwald.
>>
>> Maybe he cut his head off or said,"Accio heart!".
>>
>Nah,
>
>I'm thinking Dumbledore would not not use the AK curse. Neither would he go
>in for anything tyoo messy/gruesom. My person feeling is that it has
>something to do with that mysterious room in the Department of Mysteries.
>
>It will be interesting to see how she does it but I do know that if it was
>me, I wouldn't kill to simply kill someone - to get it over and done with.
>Neither would I kill to save myself (not enough selfless motivation to
>justify it). If it was me, I would only kill to save another's life. I'm
>sorry of that sounds a tad sappy to some of you but I have a feeling that
>for Harry to be able to kill Tom Riddle without permanently damaging his own
>soul he will have to tap directly into his most powerful weapon, his "saving
>people thing"
>
>Brent
>

Fortunetely, by killing V, he does just that.
Re: Grindelwald [message #231557 ] Sa, 11 März 2006 10:53
Toon  
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:56:17 -0700, "Fish Eye no Miko"
<fisheye [at] deadmoon.circus> wrote:

>wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Jo has said that DD defeated the dark wizard Grindelwald (she makes
>> particular note of pronouncing the "w" as a "v", i.e., Grindelvald)
>> in 1945 and when asked, she did say that he was dead but hedged
>> when asked if he was important or not (from the Leaky Cauldron
>> interview in 2005). I know she likes to draw parallels with the
>> wizarding and muggle world and maybe there isn't any more of a
>> devious connection here.
>
>How would drawing a parallel to the muggle world hint that there's a more
>"devious connection"? What's the connection?

Rainbows.

>
>> However, she has also said that Voldemort is the most powerful
>> wizard for hundreds of years. Now, my "realm of mythical
>> theories" is this: Grindelwald has made a horcrux (for sake of
>> argument, let's assume just one). DD defeats the human form
>> of Grindelwald but his spectral form lives on (similar to what
>> happened to Voldemort after the AK rebounded).
>
>But then why, in the 50+ years since then, haven't there been any stories
>of Ol Grindy trying to get his body back like V did?
>
>Catherine Johnson.

Becaue maybe V immersed himself so much, he found an archaic spell
that Grinny never could. Especially if he posessed a strong willed
individual.
Re: Grindelwald [message #231578 ] Sa, 11 März 2006 15:29
John VanSickle  
tbarry22 [at] yahoo.com wrote:

> If JKR specifically said he is dead, then he is dead, period. He
> doesn't exist in any form. She is very careful when she selects her
> words, and dead means just that, dead.

He's pining for the fjords!

Regards,
John
Re: Grindelwald [message #238257 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 06:50
dicconf  
In article <1142006142.565614.244200 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
<wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>Jo has said that DD defeated the dark wizard Grindelwald (she makes
>particular note of pronouncing the "w" as a "v", i.e., Grindelvald) in
>1945 and when asked, she did say that he was dead but hedged when asked
>if he was important or not (from the Leaky Cauldron interview in 2005).
> I know she likes to draw parallels with the wizarding and muggle world
>and maybe there isn't any more of a devious connection here. However,
>she has also said that Voldemort is the most powerful wizard for
>hundreds of years.

I thought she said Voldemort was the worst (meaning nastiest) wizard
for a hundred years (single hundred, not hundreds). That means that
Voldemort is worse than Grindelwald was, but there was someone even
worse in the 19th century, when Dumbledore was young.

<snip>
> When Voldemort goes to immerse himself in the dark arts, he
>and the spectral form of Grindelwald find each other. We know that
>when Voldemort was in this phase, he tried possessing snakes and wanted
>to possess Bertha Jorkins (but couldn't because he messed her up so
>much!) So bottom line, what if the whisper of life that was Grindelwald
>is in Voldemort?

That's an interesting theory, and it would go with the type of storyline
that says the real evil keeps on jumping from body to body, but I don't
think it's likely. I think JKR is working with the storyline that says
some individuals are sociopathic and there's no need to invoke an ancient
evil to explain their behavior as a form of possession. She's using a
theme of choice, and being possessed removes that choice.

However, your post did make me consider the similarity in sound of
"-vald" and "Vold-".

=Tamar
Re: Grindelwald [message #238262 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 09:34
Toon  
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:50:52 -0000, dicconf [at] radix.net (Richard Eney)
wrote:

>I thought she said Voldemort was the worst (meaning nastiest) wizard
>for a hundred years (single hundred, not hundreds). That means that
>Voldemort is worse than Grindelwald was, but there was someone even
>worse in the 19th century, when Dumbledore was young.

Thye might have only recently stated keeping rack (100 years ago), and
V is the worst out of all the DW around since they started recording
it in the late 1800's.
Re: Grindelwald [message #238273 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 11:01
Alex Clark  
Richard Eney wrote:
> In article <1142006142.565614.244200 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> <wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> However, your post did make me consider the similarity in sound of
> "-vald" and "Vold-".

I doubt that it is any more significant than the rhyme of
Voldemort/Dumbledore (which you could say is a slant rhyme because the
French "r" is different from the English "r"). Grindelwald's "-wald" is
the last word in a compound word, but "Vold-" is a word plus the first
letter of a second word. So to JKR, the obvious way to break it down is
"Vol-de-mort", which reduces the apparent similarity.

--
Alex Clark

Mad troll video ROM (an anagram rejected by Tom Riddle)
Re: Grindelwald [message #238459 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 10:14
dicconf  
In article <1142416894.718052.99710 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Alex Clark <alexbclark [at] pennswoods.net> wrote:
>Richard Eney wrote:
>> In article <1142006142.565614.244200 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
>> <wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>> However, your post did make me consider the similarity in sound of
>> "-vald" and "Vold-".
>
>I doubt that it is any more significant than the rhyme of
>Voldemort/Dumbledore (which you could say is a slant rhyme because the
>French "r" is different from the English "r"). Grindelwald's "-wald" is
>the last word in a compound word, but "Vold-" is a word plus the first
>letter of a second word. So to JKR, the obvious way to break it down is
>"Vol-de-mort", which reduces the apparent similarity.

Quite true, but JKR has been known to use a pun.

Also, the similarity reminded me of _Wizenbeak_ (the trilogy) by Alexis
Gilliland (not a kids' book at all), in which the standard of wizard
naming is to take one syllable from your teacher's name and add one
yourself. Anyone who encounters a wizard in that series can tell who
the wizard's teacher probably was just from the name. It doesn't have
anything significant to do with the story, but it's a neat detail.

=Tamar
Vorheriges Thema:Shouldn't Hermione be in Slytherin?
Nächstes Thema:school song
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 13:58:17 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,04802 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered