[HPFGU-OTChatter] Looking for transcript of the *big* mistake.

[heiditandy]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: armillarygirl <renitentraven at hotmail.com> 
> [mailto:renitentraven at hotmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 10:49 PM
> To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Looking for transcript of the 
> *big* mistake.
> 
> 
> Real-To:  "armillarygirl <renitentraven at hotmail.com>" 
> <renitentraven at hotmail.com>
> 
>  Hi, never posted here before so here goes(takes deep breath):
> 
>  Can anyone point me to a site, or email me the relevant page, of the 
> prior incantem mistake in Goblet of Fire where James comes out of the 
> wand before Lily?

The images of the pages are here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Graphics/Publications/

Go here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives/message/3754 for
the first post to the list about the wand order issue

The Mysteries & Inconsistencies FAQ has the following to say about the
Wand Order issue (and the messages themselves are interesting, too!)

"Wand Order Issue" (Priori Incantatem) 
In the original versions of GoF, the shape/ghost of James Potter emerged
from Voldemort's wand prior to the shape/ghost of Lily Potter. Readers
later learn that the shapes/ghosts emerge from the wand in reverse
order. Since the previous 3 books had consistently indicated that James
Potter was killed before Lily Potter, readers speculated about this
latest twist. 

Yahoogroups Messages: 3754, 15297, 31284 

Both Bloomsbury and Scholastic quietly corrected later printings of GoF
without alerting the media. The rewrite is controversial to some members
(lacking the emotional depth and resonance of the original scene). 

Yahoogroups Messages: 25814, 25824, 25838, 25854, 25864, 25909 

Both publishers continue to maintain that it was just an error and that
JK Rowling has authorized the changed version. Some members claim that
they have found some later versions that were not corrected (even though
some printings prior to the one in question had been changed). It leaves
us all wondering whether the publishes reverted back to original text on
purpose at some point, but are now proclaiming it was an error that has
been corrected?