Comment on Summer Vacation

  1. “ … but for something you did not me!” There is something missing here.

    Comment Actions
    1. “Not to say I wouldn’t love to see you go down,” he added harshly, “but for something you did not me!”

      "he" being Fitzpatrick
      "you" being Anthony
      The last "you" should be italicized meaning if Anthony fell (socially or politically) the cause would be something Anthony had said or done and not related in any way to a word or action of Fitzpatrick.

      I shall try to reword things to make the sentence more clear.

      Comment Actions
      1. Or perhaps a missing comma?

        > but for something you did, not me!

        ??? or “but for something you did, not because of me!” ?

        Perhaps your original sentence is technically correct (I am not an English native speaker to be able to make good judgement on that), but it is definitively confusing.

        Comment Actions
        1. This was my rewrite. Does it help?

          Fitzpatrick shuttered. “Not to say I wouldn’t love to see you go down, but for something you did, not me!” he added firmly.

          Technically it's correct, but that is not to say it makes sense. The American language is filled with "rules" and lots of "exceptions" to those rules which can make it very confusing to interpret.

          If that rewrite doesn't help it make sense, let me know. I'll put it the "because." That's correct too, but more wordy. One of the biggest complaint against authors is being too wordy... But I'm writing for enjoyment not literary acclaim.

          Comment Actions
          1. A way better! Thank you.

            Comment Actions
            1. No problem. And thank you. The fact that somebody out there is reading my stories and cares enough to comment and make suggestions means a lot to me.

              Comment Actions
              1. I don’t want to flatter you, but these stories are really good. Certainly, one of two best Dudley’s-daughter-is-a-witch stories (I have some inexplicable good feelings for Dursley's Daughter by writerer on Wattpad, which is very different from this one, more like the Kipling’s Stalky & Co. than an adventure story), but it is a way better than that. Although I have some disagreement with you about some characters (my headcanon Harry is a way more friendly, I read too much stories by Northumbrian), these are you characters and certainly these are not flaws of your stories.

                Thank you very much

                Comment Actions
                1. Honest compliments are way better than flattery. Thanks so much for your appraisals.

                  I've shared your story recommendations with my daughter; she'll be happy to look them up and read them... Thanks for the ideas.

                  Any suggestions on the Vernon Miranda situation?

                  Comment Actions
                  1. > Any suggestions on the Vernon Miranda situation?

                    I have been always fascinated by people who are balancing on the edge of the International Statue of Secrecy. Grangers, Dursleys, Audrey Weasley (it is my firm headcanon she was a muggle, e.g., Mr. and Mrs. Percy Weasley), and of course exactly this situation is whole beauty of Strangers at Drakeshaugh, and James and Me by Northumbrian.

                    So, yes, I would like to include her somehow. And yes, of course, the mere fact she dates a brother of a witch is not enough to get her some standing under the Statue, so there should be some story how she got in the situation where she has to be included.

                    Comment Actions
                    1. Could you explain to me what the International Statue of Secrecy is? It is not a phrase I am familiar with. What book/source did it come out of? How is one supposed to get "standing?"

                      Why do you think Audrey Weasley is muggle? Where would Percy have had a chance to meet a muggle maid let alone long enough to consider matrimony?

                      Thanks so much for your conversation.

                      Comment Actions
                      1. Concerning Audrey Weasley read the above link, it is a very nice story (albeit a bit long).

                        International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy from the end of the seventeenth century is an international agreement among all wizarding nations to keep their existence secret. Read about it more on that link. It’s the law which forces all wizards to keep their existence secret, one of the pieces of very constitution of the wizarding world. It is many times mentioned in the books (and elsewhere).

                        Last Edited Sun 30 Jun 2019 05:01PM UTC

                        Comment Actions
                        1. The Secrecy act is alluded to only in passing in the Harry Potter books which explain my lack of knowledge. (I've read nothing but the original series.). Thanks. I shall keep it in mind with whatever I do between Vernon and Miranda.

                          Comment Actions
                          1. I think the basic premise of the law is that there are just two groups of people: those who are in, and those who are not. Those who are in are allowed to have all information public to the wizarding public, but they are responsible for the maintaining the secrecy (with quite harsh punishments in Azkaban etc., I would say that's the only way how a Muggle can get there). From this point of view, all wizards and witches are obviously in (at least after they informed as Muggleborns), but also their parents and siblings are in; which includes both Petunia as a sister of a witch, and Vernon Dursley as a caretaker of a wizard. It certainly includes all Wycliffs (I don't think there was any legal problem with informing Vernon Wycliff).

                            I think this is rather commonly accepted interpretation of what's in the canon. My suspicion is that there are some other ways how to get in (with all rather harsh punishments included however), because sometimes the burden of obliviating is so high (or it is thoroughly unpractical), that some Muggles are rather included.

                            Animagus at War by White_Squirrel includes one such situation: Harry grew as an adopted son of Grangers, so Hermione is his adopted sister. They have two Muggle classmates from their elementary school as guests for Christmas. Then suddenly their house is attacked by group of Death Eaters and all of them (including those two Muggle friends) retreat by Floo to Hogwarts. Suddenly those two Muggles have to be informed (because without that they think they are on the top of the rickety construction in the middle of a ruin of medieval castle; which is how Hogwarts looks to Muggles), and they cannot be obliviated because of their need to testify in investigation etc.

                            The second such example are two novels by Northumbrian: Strangers at Drakeshaugh and James and Me. The first (long post-War) is the story of friendship of two families who live in the Cheviot Hills in Northumberland: one local Muggle family of Charltons, and Potters who just moved in from London. Their sons who are five in the beginning of the story (James Potter and a son of Charltons) become fast friends in the elementary school, and it brings a lot of problems balancing on the edges of the secrecy (“What exactly does your father do?”). They are not read-in in the first novel (which is now completed), but I expected that its sequel (where the main herione dates James Potter, son of Harry) runs to this situation quite necessarily.

                            Just my thoughts on this.

                            Last Edited Mon 01 Jul 2019 06:02PM UTC

                            Comment Actions
                            1. Your thoughts on muggle/Wizard relations were most interesting. I will refer to them when I reach the appropriate situation in my story... Thank you so much.

                              I've a new technical problem perhaps you have some thoughts to share. JK makes it pretty clear by the end of the Potter series (1-7) that wands are more than mere tools. The wand chooses the owner. It owes allegiance to the one that defeats the previous owner. Voldemort messed up because Draco Malfoy got the elder wand from Dumbledore, and then Harry got Draco's wand so the elder wand (even though Harry had never touched it) somehow knew and owed allegiance to Harry...

                              So what goes on with "dueling?" It's supposed to be a popular wizard sport. Does the wand change allegiance every time someone loses in a duel? Can one who loses a duel reclaim the wand to "try again?" Do you lose your wand when you lose a duel? How can one learn and improve one's skill if a wizard/witch keeps on losing his/her wand during practice times? What about in class when the Defense Against the Dark Arts professor pits one student against another to practice a new spell? If the students on the right side of the room cast their spell first, do all the students on the "left" side "lose" their wands? Harry pit the Dumbledore's Army students against each other to practice. How did this affect wand ownership? If it didn't, why not? When does a wand take the encounter seriously enough to change allegiance?

                              Like I said, an interesting technical question. I'll probably ignore it and assume the wand remains with the owner when dueling, but following the wand ownership stuff, Holly should have picked up a lot of wand allegiances during that test in the Ministry 2 books ago (fairy tale) when she took down Thomas and the other aurors...

                              Comment Actions
                              1. I have rather complicated history with the Deathly Hallows. I have bought the book six hours after it was published (no I couldn’t bother myself to get up at midnight) while on the work-related conference in Birmingham (I am a Czech from Prague otherwise), read it over-night, so I flew home rather blurry, and I thought that it is the best book of the series. Longer I think about that (and longer I participate in the discussions about it on the Internet), more I am discouraged. It seems to me that Horcruxes, whole camping area, and the finale is very much under-thought plotcruch and that the whole book is just thinly covered one large plothole. Certainly whole idea about the transfer of ownership of wands seems to me more like deus ex machina more than anything else.

                                Of course, Ms Rowling has to struggle with the bane of all children/young-adult books, which I called The Problem of Peter Pevensie. In the finale of the first book from The Chronicles of Narnia series, we should believe that thirteen year old (magically slightly grown older) boy defeated in the fair battle the mightiest of all witches of the superhuman size. It is barely possible to do it in the book, where the suspense of unbelief is more simple, but when they tried to make a film from the Narnia Chronicles, the result is a pure disaster: thirteen year old boy fighting adult warrioress just looks ridiculous, whatever film magic you apply (similarly, it turned impossible to make a good film Aslan … whatever they tried he looks still like a overgrown plush toy).

                                The same problem applies to the Harry Potter series: we need to believe that a seventeen year old boy (with substandard training in the magical defence) beat adult superwizard who has otherwise no adversary equal to him (and whom we seen in the end of the sixth volume battle with Albus Dumbledore in show of incomparable strength). The only way how to get around it and not finish completely ridiculous is to arrange some trick (or make it a group battle with Harry’s allies on his side … e.g., the finale of Escape by SingularOddities). However, if you consider the subtle net of intrigues and stratagems which all must to fall in proper places for whole thing to work and Harry survive, it is absolutely crazy to consider that as a reasonable war plan. If this was the best Albus Dumbledore came up with, then his strategical thinking was not very impressive. So, that’s my opinion on the seventh book of the series. (and don’t let me start on films: day after the last battle, when still plenty of dangerous criminals are running through the land, the main hero and the primary target of any possible assassination is effectively wandless, because he didn’t repair his original Holly & Phoenix wand, and broke The Elder Wand).

                                Now technically (using only arguments from the inside of HP universe) to the problem of wands. Obviously, any disarming cannot lead to the change of ownership of a wand, that would be crazy. “The Wheel Is Come Full Circle by White_Squirrel” came with the limit, that there must be an intent of the winner of the duel to use the acquired wand as his own, not only to disarm your opponent. That actually works in the Deathly Hallows situation (more or less, it doesn’t explain very well how Draco Malfoy became owner of the Wand of Destiny in the first place, but both Harry in the Malfoy Manor, Dumbledore in the duel with Grindewald, and Grindewald stealing the wand from Grigorovitch work), and it can limit the potential misuse of the rule in the normal magical life. Another alternative is to limit this ownership exchange theory just to the Elder Wand (or any possible special super-wands) and all other wands just follow the Ollivander’s mantra of “wand choosing her master” and make wand transfer effectively impossible (meaning, every wand works somehow for every wizard/witch, but the ones which haven’t chosen their owner, work very poorly; but that doesn’t explain how Hermione battled successfully against Bellatrix Lestrange using her own wand, which she did not acquire in the duel with her). It is just a mess.

                                Last Edited Thu 17 Oct 2019 05:19PM UTC

                                Comment Actions
                                1. really loved your analysis. I think I'll just ignore the wand ownership stuff.

                                  According to JK logic, wands are really smart...

                                  I know the book had Harry fixing his wand before burying the elder wand, I don't remember the movie resolution--I was so annoyed at that dorky final face-off where there were no witnesses to Voldemort's ultimate demise and no body to prove he actually died or that Harry was responsible... It set the stage for all sorts of conspiracy claims that he never died at all, like the time 16 years earlier...

                                  as to Narnia--I never watched the movies. I was too annoyed at the last book of the series where it was revealed that Narnia was actually a variation of heaven or Valhalla (since there were both heroes and villains there) and those residing there were all dead. Does that mean when the children went into the wardrobe closet they died? Were they all resurrected when they came back? They visited Narnia several times; did they die and were resurrected numerous times? Why was it only for children? Or can living people visit this land of the dead. My sister told me the author was a minister--that explains the religious bent, but it sure came as a shock to me when I read them.

                                  Love reading your comments. Thanks so much.

                                  Comment Actions
                                    1. C. S. Lewis was not a minister, but an Oxford professor of the English literature (I was told that his textbook on the Elizabethan literature is still used). He converted to Christianity as an adult and wrote large number of books about his faith (both fiction and popular theology books). Narnia Chronicles are sometimes rather thinly covered Christian allegories (the first book is in my opinion too thin reinterpretation of the Easter story, but it helped me very much in my own conversion to explain me what is the Easter all about), actually so thin allegories that his close friend J. R. R. Tolkien (of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings fame) never liked them.
                                    2. I think you misread the seventh book of Narnia series. Narnia was not the heaven (all their previous visits to Narnia were just “plain” inter-world travels). In the finale of the book, there was the end of the world event in the Narnia world (because there are separate worlds, as explained in The Magician’s Nephew, the sixth book the series). When they enter the stable, they all die and enter the Narnia’s version of the heaven, which turns out to be shared heaven with all other worlds ours included. Of course, to get to that shared heaven, people in our world have to die as well.

                                    Last Edited Fri 18 Oct 2019 09:51AM UTC

                                    Comment Actions
                                  1. (4 more comments in this thread)