Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 23

message: The book has been released now, we should add the plot
: There already is plot. As a matter of fact its a bit too large. — Shinhan < talk > 13:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what did you expect? It's a 756-page-long book. --Boricuaeddie hábleme 13:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How about something like this to make it more manageable? --Ayleuss 14:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: At 1500 words or so it's not the worst I've seen, but it is one-and-a-half times the size of our plot summary for War and Peace, the Penguin Classics English translation of which runs to over 1400 pages.  It does take some time and thought to produce a concise and readable plot summary of a novel, and it would not be reasonable to expect that to happen in the middle of the excitement over release when everybody wants to add in a mention of his favorite scene. --14:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, improve the plot summary for War & Peace... Espresso Addict 23:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm...I don't think so. Read #2 here. --Isis4563(talk) 14:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is not sad at all. It is a very good thing that someone has written a book which has encouraged so many people to read it. Rave reviews from teachers trying to encourage reading bears this out. What exactly is the point of a book which 'experts' consider to be high quality, but relatively few people are interested in reading? Thi is about the art of tale telling and keeping the attention of the readers. I absoulutely do not see why long plots do not belong in encyclopedias. Why on earth not? As to legal issues, the issue seems to be pretty much whether a description is likely to harm the copyright holders ability to make money from their book, and I'm not convinced even a rather long description is going to do this. Are you seriously suggesting people will read this article instead of the book itself? Sandpiper 22:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plot details have no real world importance.  If people want in-universe details about the world of the Harry Potter books, they should go to a fansite (it's not as if there's a paucity of them).  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that discusses topics that affect the real world, not fictitious ones.  17Drew 22:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you for real? Of course there should be a part Of Wikipedia for fictional work because some work are very important to people. Denisa hime 02:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a fansite.  If people want minor details about the plot, they should go to a fansite.  "It is important to me" doesn't mean that something warrants mention; if there's no other reason to have it in the article, then it's fancruft.  Only major plot points should be included so that there is context for discussion of real world aspects of the book.  17Drew 02:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: i don't know if i missed something or what but who's the muggle who performs magic late in life under desperate circumstances?i just finished the book and i didnt see anything about who the muggle is that performs magic later in life.67.185.182.69 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Daniels?  He's been called far worse things than "muggle"! --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I missed this too!!!!! LizzieHarrison 20:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glad to know I'm not the only one who noticed the omission of this plot detail. I recall Rowling saying that there was a reason Sirius had to die, as well, which I don't recall reading. PhilShady 20:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He died so that Harry would know the truth about his mother and Dumbledore through the Pensieve. -71.87.110.208 00:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ted Tonks is a wizard. PhilShady 02:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: My mistake. I thought he was supposed to be a muggle. 76.110.151.156 03:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ted Tonks is a Muggle- his wife, Andromeda Tonks (nee Black), was removed from the Black family tree for marrying a Muggle.  Cdlw93 04:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Ted was a Muggle-born wizard, which in the eyes of the pure-blooded Black family, was just as bad as a Muggle. PhilShady 06:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ariana wasn't a Muggle.  Her parents were a witch and wizard and she performed magic at a young age (6 years old?). --Dave. 10:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rowling never said it would be a Muggle that would perform magic, but "there is a character who does manage in desperate circumstances to do magic quite late in life."  I think it's more likely that this was Merope Gaunt, who her father identified as a Squib.  After Marvolo and Morfin were carted off to Azkaban, she was able to brew the love potion that bewitched Tom Riddle Sr.  Stile4aly 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's Half-Blood Prince. I think she said it was going to be someone in Deathly Hallows. Is it literal? I think it's magical the kindness Dudley shows to Harry in DH, but that might really be stretching it. Perhaps its Petunia's attempt to get into Hogwarts after she's eleven? Valley2city 00:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Hagrid, doing his Reparo to the flying motorcycle.  It didn't work right, but it was magic, and not something Hagrid could previously do.
it wasnt late in hagrids life though, as for all we know, hagrid is still alive at the time of the epilogue --71.61.81.172 07:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hasnt Hagrid been doing magic since Book 1? The pig tail? --Ayleuss 08:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wait a minute... 

message: Why one has 700 over pages and the other has only 600 over pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.82.51 (talk) 
:A difference in font size I would guess. 70.253.203.156 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After making a quick comparison, I would say that the number of lines per page is lower in the US edition. There's extra space at the header and footer of each page; the chapter title and page number are much smaller in the UK edition.- Zero1328 Talk? 01:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If you mean in the article, I don't feel it's very significant. If you just want to see it for yourself, you can very easily find it like I did. Actually, whether or not one may think it's significant, I believe it would be illegal to give a picture of the actual insides of the book. - Zero1328 Talk? 02:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Same text, different cover, so as to have more adult street cred Sandpiper 22:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The US version has images.  There should be no word changes.  After the first change that pushes text from one page to the next, they're all different.  The font size is different.  Combined it's a difference of over 100 pages!--WPaulB 16:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between US and UK editions 

message: I read the book today, and I still have no clue why Rowling said that Harry's eyes resembling his mother is so very, crucially imporant. Can someone fill me in? Also, Rowling said that a non magical character will peform magic late in life, under desperate circumstances. Who did this? I recall nothing.Piggins 04:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think this is relevant. It is answering the information put up on the page when it was still pre-release. This may be in the article, but Harry's eyes = his mother's is important because Snape loved Lily; his eyes remind him of her. The character was someone "thought" to be a Muggle/Squib. This was Dumbledore's sister Ariana Dumbledore. ~~ THE  DARK LORD  TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 05:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And i believe that Harry having Lilly's eyes is the one thing that helped Snape go on and try to play spy/protect Harry. Denisa hime 02:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry's Eyes  and Late-Life Magic 

message: Head on over to Deep Discount, and enter a search for either 'Harry Potter' or 'Deathly Hallows'.  You'll simply be redirected to the front page.
And no matter how hard you search through their list of new releases... you'll find NO Harry Potter books at all.
Gee-wizards Batman!  I wonder why they don't carry Harry Potter books anymore.T ConX 05:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep Discount doesn't carry the book anymore... 

message: There are a number of things that should be considered with the final sentence of the 'After Deathly Hallows' section.
Firstly, it doesn't state a currency, and since Bloomsbury is registered on the London exchange, the value should be in GBP, not USD (of which I assume the writer has converted to). Also note that the USD value would only be valid if it were calculated at the time the decreased value of Bloomsbury was measured, and not any other time.
Secondly, and I am not suggesting to rewrite history, the article that is cited is dated over 5 weeks before the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Given this, it is not even appropriate for it to appear in a section titled 'After Deathly Hallows'. A more up-to-date article would be more appropriate, but this will not be viable until some time has passed since the release of the 7th Harry Potter book. 
I'll add that this footnote-like sentence would be better off in an article about Bloomsbury, be that an article on it's stock market history (which is rather interesting), or an article on the effects of Harry Potter on the publisher.
Psydexzerity 06:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloomsbury Financials 

message: I put this back in (with an extra sentence on legal ramifications), since what I could find in the discussion was inconclusive. Thoughts?—Wasabe3543 07:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They do carry clothes so how can they not carry things? What does that even mean not carrying things? I am sorry if I may offend you, I'm just really unaware of Israeli laws. WillTheHedgehog 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel/Sabbath contoversy 

message: Minor point -- in a post in an earlier archive, someone says 'artefact' should be spelled 'artifact'.  This is incorrect. 'Artefact' is the British English spelling and probably at least as popular as 'artifact' in the US. Dougweller 13:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere in wikipedia guidelines I read that if the subject is British, British spelling should be used. If it is American, American spelling should be used. If it discusses a general topic neither British nor American, either may be used (As long as it's consistent), so I think British spelling should be used in this article. :) --isis4563 13:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference, the mentioned article may be found here. Dust Filter 14:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both spellings are in use in the UK, but the "e" spelling could be seen as more correct to its latin roots. --Tony Sidaway 16:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Must have been a typo 172.209.180.106 23:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPELLING 

message: Hi,
I am looking for an article that will contain a list of mistakes in the Harry Potter series that JK Rowling committed. As for example, I remember reading in the part 1 or part 2 about Dudly throwing away a Playstation. If I know it correctly, the 'Deathly Hallows' is supposed to happen in 1996, so in 'Chamber of Secrets', we cannot expect Dudley to use a play station, which shipped first in 1994. I'm sure there are minor mistakes like this. Please give a link, or create the article
:Perhaps you mean this link? []Kanamekun 14:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An article about mistakes in the Harry Potter series that JK Rowling committed 

message: According to Barnes and Noble, the US edition has 784 pages. The article says 759. --Isis4563(talk) 15:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright :) thanks. --Isis4563(talk) 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually... that's 759 *numbered* pages... taking into account the table of contents and other such unnumbered pages, there are indeed 784 physical pages in the book. Bryanc 15:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I figured that was why, because Books-a-million and wal-mart also say 784. I guess 759 should be the number put in the article, though. :) --Isis4563(talk) 15:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Does that count blank pages as 1 page or 2 (one for each side)?Claudia 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There are 7 leaves of paper before the numbered pages start (14 pages).  There are 759 numbered pages, followed by a blank page (1 page), and 5 leaves (10 pages).  14 + 759 + 1 + 10 = 784.  No mystery.  The reliable sources and the "amateur" sources do not conflict.  It's a matter of what we are counting... physical pages in the book, or numbered pages of the story.  Bryanc 16:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It makes little sense to count blank pages, even if the booksellers do. android79 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With  big fanfare the publishers announced that it was going to be 784 pages a couple of months ago, a number which emblazoned the episode titles of both major Potter podcasts the following week. 784 was announced as the official number, but I think we should stick with 759 as those are the total pages that count. Valley2city 06:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US page count 

message: Does anyone know if the first person J.K. Rowling dedicated the book to is Neil Cicierega, the creator of Potter Puppet Pals? Shan (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: She did not.  Neil is her husband. Hpswimmer (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dedication