Comments | fitchersvogel: Is he dead? Or not? Episode II

fitchersvogel

Is he dead? Or not? Episode II - The R.A.B. Edition

Sep 12, 2005 22:13

What do the omissions in the American edition mean? Do they hint that someone we believe to be dead is still alive?

( He cannot kill you if you are already dead. )

Comments 5

scarah2 September 12 2005, 21:08:02 UTC

I hope it's not Regulus, for the reason you mention. And also:

Cathedral: Will we be hearing anything from Sirius Black's brother, Regulus, in future books?
JK Rowling replies -> Well, he's dead, so he's pretty quiet these days.

It's funny that Dumbledore brags about this, because in the cases we do know about: Sirius - failure. Potters - big failure.

I hope it's someone totally random like Dorcas Meadowes, who's off in Tibet herding Yetis.

fitchersvogel September 12 2005, 21:18:39 UTC

Ok, this shoots down the Regulus theory completely, I guess... Ah well, would have been kind of a plot hole anyway.

And yeah, if Dumbledore would offer to protect my family, I'd run away.

Off in Tibet sounds good - if someone believed dead is hidden somehow, I just hope it's not another Polyjuice-thingy. All this "ooops, it's not who you think" is getting old.

amadyce September 19 2005, 07:03:01 UTC

I don't think it really means anything in particular. JKR has two different publishers, and hence two different editors. Emma Somebody in England and Arthur So-and-So in the U.S.. All this probably means is that Emma, when going over the manuscript, thought that passage was a bit wordy or redundant or something and suggested to Jo that she cut those two lines. Jo would have to confer with her on this, so if the lines where crucial to the story she would have said so and the lines would have stayed in. Arthur apparently didn't mind the passage, and so the lines were left in in the American version ( ... )

fitchersvogel September 19 2005, 19:21:51 UTC

I agree that JKR didn't leave out the passages as an intentional clue, but it is nonetheless interesting that she chose to include them in the first place.
As I said above, it is possible that the lines do not refer to someone hidden in the past/present, but to Book 7, maybe relating to Snape, Draco or any Deatheater-gone-good.

Your idea about the mysterious third DE is interesting as well, but to include the lines in the 6th book for me it seems necessary that we encountered this man/woman before, maybe in disguise (this really is a stretch now!), for dramatical reasons. I mean, it wouldn't be very exciting if in Book 7 suddenly a DE pops up, saying "I'm back!" if we don't know anything about him/her :)....

And thanks for the comment!

amadyce September 19 2005, 22:55:33 UTC

Yeah, I knew it was a real stretch.:)