The Summer of his 16th Year (was: Voldemort killed...)

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 157312

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...>
wrote:
>
> Mike wrote:
> > <snip> BTW, DD said that Tom killed his relatives "in 
> > the  summer of his sixteenth year" not when he was 
> > sixteen years old. ...
> >

> Carol responds:
> Actually, "in his sixteenth year" is the error, which a 
> copyeditor should have caught and corrected or queried. 
> (JKR, ... may not know the difference between "sixteen" 
> and "in his sixteenth year.") 

bboyminn:

Normally when we say someone is in their 'first year', we 
are talking about the year between 0 and One, as in, he 
is in his first year of college.

But people do not speak in absolutes, and I think there is 
a reasonable general conversational context for Dumbledore's 
statement even if it is not absolutely factually accurate.

'..in the summer of his sixteenth year' could in the context 
of the coversation mean in the summer of the year in which 
he was 16, rather than his 16th year of life. Your 16th year 
of life, as has already been pointed out, is techincally the 
year in which you are 15. When you reach the age of 15, you 
have lived 15 full years, so the year following your 15th 
birthday is you 16th year of life. We agree on that aspect.

But, I think there is a fair argument to be made for common 
speech rather than techincal definition. While the Copy 
Editor should have questioned the entry, I personally don't 
think it represents an actual error, and may have been 
justified at being left as is. To say 'in the summer of his 
17th year' may have actually caused more confusion. 

So, for ease and simplicity of understanding, I am going 
to take 'in the summer of his 16th year' to mean what I 
feel was intended, 'in the summer of the year in which he 
was 16'; 16th year of age, not 16th year of life.

I agree with Carol's assessment of the time line 
(post#157250) in which she list a logical and reasonable 
sequences of events.

Tom made the diary AFTER he killed Myrtle, so that fact 
that he incorporated his 16 year old self in the diary 
does establish that he was 16 when Myrtle died. 

While the absents of mention of the ring is not the same 
as absents of the ring, I think it is not mentioned to 
help establish the time line. Before, without the ring, 
and after, with it.

I think in the post referenced above, Carol establishes 
the most likely and reasonable time line. Sure you can 
argue other possibilities, but I think hers makes the 
most sense, and keeps the most consistent flow of time 
information we have. 

One small point I will quibble with though - see items 
6 and 7 below -

6. Tom asks Slughorn about Horcruxes, clearly after the 
Riddle murders because he's wearing the ring.

7. Tom makes the diary, already a "powerful magical object," 
and the ring into Horcruxes.

While not stated, it is implied that 7 immediately follows 
6. We don't actually know the time span between them. Yes, 
Slughorn gives Tom some basic information about Horcruxes, 
but Tom needs to research the subject for a while since it 
seems to be information that the wizard world in not eager 
to have divilged, and not an easy task to perform.

I don't think the Ring and Diary were made Horcruxes until 
a few years at best after Tom left school. 

Again, Carol doesn't specifically say one occurs immediately 
after the other, but I think it is important to the time line 
to understand that there is likely a significant amount of 
time between item 6 and 7.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn