Sunday, June 17, 2007

Muggle Blog II

So my Dude over at www.mysocaldlife.blogspot.com has already made some good points about Goblet of Fire, but I have a few of my own to add. However, I can poke a hole in his theory about Voldemort/Tom Riddle. Voldemort was Tom Riddle. Named for his muggle father, and his middle name was from the wizarding side of the family. So the Riddle's grown up son was the one who got Voldy's mom preggo, then left her when she found out he was a witch. Same name. Makes it confusing. Because there was no record in the Muggle world of Tom Riddle having a son, Tom Marvolo Riddle, he probably wouldn't have inherited the wealth.

So, on to my observations. At first, I thought I'd found a HUGE problem in the Priori Incantatem scene, where James came out of the wand before Lily. Meaning that James would have been killed AFTER her.... Unfortunately, after spending more time researching, this was a mistake made by the American editor in the rush to get the book out, and was changed to the correct order in later editions.

The planet Mars seems to be very important to the series. In Azkaban, the centaurs keep repeating that "Mars is bright tonight." And now, in Goblet, on page 575, professor Trelawney says, "We have almost finished our work on planetary divination. Today, however, will be an excellent opportunity to examine the effects of Mars, for he is placesd most interestingly at the present time....." Mars was the God of War, so it may just be that simple. But perhaps Harry and the others should pay a bit more attention in Divination, because it seems to forshadow big movements by Voldemort.

My final observation is also small, and could just be a editing mistake. On page 725, the book refers to the horseless carriages that will take the students to the train. At this point, Harry has witnessed the death of Cedric, and therefore should be able to see the Thestrals that are pulling the carriages as he does upon his return to school in book 5. This is far more likely an editing mistake, but it's something that caught my eye.

No comments: