This seems dimmly familiar but I can’t place which book it is. I have the vague recollection that it didn’t work.
No, I remember it too, and I believe it *did * work. I don’t remember which book it was in, though.
Goblet of Fire, Chapter 29. This was bugging me so I had to go look it up. I remembered that it was Goblet of Fire because Harry Potter gets all the way to the office door, and then is seen by Moody through the door with Moody’s magical eye.
I’m sure this would not have worked for someone that was not a student at the school, however, or someone that the headmaster would not want to allow in his office. In Order of the Phoenix, Dolores Umbridge is unable to gain acess to Dumbledore’s office even though she is a teacher at the school and the nominal headmistress.
There are two doors to pass to get into the headmaster’s office. The first is the entrance to the staircase behind the gargoyle in the corridor. The staircase leads to the actual office door. Having (or guessing) the password will allow you to knock on the office door, but not necessarily enter. (The password at the time, which Harry eventually got right, was “Cockroach Clusters”.)
I had the impression that it was the office door that sealed itself. I don’t believe we’ve actually been shown anyone entering the office without Dumbledore’s presence, although it’s certainly implied that McGonagall did so after Dumbledore’s death. I’m not taking any stance at all on Dumbledore’s current metabolic status, but I will point out that his death–real or faked–was necessary for Harry’s journey.
Concerning Aberforth: It’s never stated conclusively that Aberforth actually practiced inappropriate charms on a goat, just that he was accused of doing so. Albus claimed that his brother held his head high and went about his business regardless of what was said in the newspaper, but added the caveat that he wasn’t sure Aberforth could read. I won’t even venture to guess what role he’ll play in Book 7, although I’m sure he’ll be around.
My speculation for Book 7: The separation between Harry and Ginny will last until Ginny gets tired of it, which will be about five minutes after she gets over being touched by his concern for her. Then she’ll slap him around and make him see reason. Even Tommy Boy ought to think twice before getting between Ginny and something she wants.
Stated so much better than I could have. Yes, definitely.
I’ve heard a theory that their full names are Frederick Fabian and George Gideon, which would make sense if the Prewett brothers died in between Percy’s birth and the twin’s.
I can’t speak to Fred, but perhaps George is from St George? He is legendary in England at least.
I have often wondered if they are named Weasley because of either the way Percy has acted or the way he is going to act. Just a WA theory.
I am rereading the series at present and am on book 5. IMO, Rowling is fairly subtle about some stuff. In book one or two, HP has a stray thought in Potions that Snape can read his mind. It’s a throw-away remark, but spot on for future events, ie occulism. I wonder what else is seen as a throw away/filler bit that is actually quite important…
Roger that on the Tower card (I checked for it on Wikipedia). I had assumed that “Lightning-struck tower” referred to an Ace of spades turning up in a particular position (or something like that). As for when Harry overheard her from behind the statue, I checked my copy. It was before his first private lesson with Dumbledore, and she was turning up spades, not swords (is it perhaps different in the British texts?). That’s where I got the idea that Trelawney wasn’t using the Tarot.
Still, I’d like to get Rowling in a chatty mood, and ask her directly if her symbology vis-a-vis Voldemort’s horcrux selections is related to Tatot or to Arthurian Romance. Or to neither.
Oh, and btw, eleanorigby, I believe the word you’re looking for is Occlumency.
Well, shut my mouth. I could’ve sworn the text said Ten of Swords, not spades. Weird.
But I recognized the symbology assigned to the cards, so I just assumed it was Tarot — probably didn’t read the text that closely.
Swords, in Tarot, generally symbolizes conflict and strife. This would be a fairly good suit for Gryffindor, who are noted for their bravery.
Cups, in Tarot, represents love. I can see why this is Hufflepuff’s suit: she was the one who rejected no students, after all. I’ll teach them all, she said in the Sorting Hat’s song.
I’m guessing Ravenclaw is Wands, which would represent enterprise — not bad for a witch who prized hard work.
Pentacles (or Coins) often represents material possessions and money, which can sort of stretch to fit the ambitions and greed of the Slytherins.
I’m not surprised that Rowling had Prof. Trelawney use an ordinary deck of cards. As I’ve said before, she seems to be avoiding overt occult symbolism. Good catch on “The Lightning Struck Tower,” however. A nice little Easter Egg for Tarot-savvy readers.
Regarding the cartomancy angle:
Bear in mind that the Tarot suits and the playing card suits are parallels. The Tarot suits were derived from early playing cards, which often had swords, wands or batons, cups, and coins as suits. The parallel isn’t as obvious now, since the playing card suits took highly stylized forms to make them easier to manufacture (the newer version could be stenciled, rather than woodcut).
I believe the parallels run:
Spades:Swords
Wands: Clubs
Cups: Hearts
Coins/Pentacles:Diamonds
So, symbolically, the Ten of Spades and the Ten of Swords would be equivalent. I’ve never heard Trelawney’s interpretation of the card, however. I believe it’s usually interpreted as foretelling a painful change, but not usually a violent death. Most fortunetelling methods seem unreliable in the Potterverse, but the card could be foreshadowing the change in Harry’s role with Dumbledore’s presumed death.
The passage could more subtle than it appears. First, it makes it look like Trelawney is no good at using tools to perform divination–she’s using playing cards instead of a Tarot deck, and seems to be misinterpreting the card at that. However, her misinterpretation leads to a correct statement, which may reflect that she is using her talent at some level.
Or, I could be reading way too much into it. shrugs
That might not be out of line for an interpretation of the Knight of Swords, as the court cards are usually interpreted as people. Trelawney’s Bicycle deck wouldn’t have a Knight, but a Jack; and probably wouldn’t have a Page of Spades at all.
We should make a list of Trelawney’s predictions. Some of them have come true.
For instance, she told Delores Umbridge that she was in great danger — and she was.
I remember reading some commentary once (can’t remember where, sorry) where the author was asserting that all of the predictions (even some of the joke ones) actually foreshadow some part of the action. e.g. Trelawney with the Grim stalking Harry in Prisoner of Azkaban - there was a big black dog in his vicinity. In Goblet of Fire, when Ron Weasley is making up calamities for his Divination homework, he writes down that he will be drowned - and later on he is hidden in the lake as part of one of second task. etc.
The person with this theory was most interested in the Christmas dinner in Prisoner of Azkaban, where Trelawney shows up and then is afraid to join the small group of teachers and students, because she would be the thirteenth at the table, which would mean that the first person to rise from the table would become the first to die. Dumbledore convinces her to join them for lunch anyway. At the end of the meal, Ron and Harry stand at the same time; Trelawney cries out “which of you stood first” but they didn’t notice. Of course, we know now that this is all bunk, since Dumbledore was at that table and was the first of the group to die.
Well, we didn’t get a complete description of the meal. Maybe Dumbledore came across a turnip with a rude shape that he found some humor in.
It was risible, get it?
I wouldn’t view that last one as a prediction per se, but more of a superstition. Sounds like she’s just triskaidekaphobic to me.
In book 4, AD states that related wands (wands that have material from the same magical beast or similiar) will not work fully against one another. It’s where he explains about priori incantatum. So, my WAG is that Voldy needed a new wand to gain the advantage over HP–perhaps he didn’t think it through that now HP’s wand is now no longer restrained as well…
Perhaps Rowena’s wand is petrified by now. 
And of course, in OotP, there are 13 people at supper in the chapter when the adults give Harry information about the Order and its activities. The first to stand was Sirius.
That’s a clever observation, Rysto, I had never noticed that! See, Antinor01, Trelawney knows more than we think.
I can’t take credit for that; I saw it posted somewhere.