The name 'Kendra'/Wand lore ( was: Why Down On All the Characters)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 179381

> Magpie:
> I thought Kendra could easily exist at the time mentioned. Sometimes 
> you find surprising names in the past, even ones that don't sound 
> like standards. According to my dictionary Kendra appeared in the 40s 
> in the US and the 60s in Great Britain, but I can easily believe that 
> were people who had the name before it became popular. In my 
> dictionary it says it's probably a combination of Kenneth and 
> Alexandra.
> 
> Sali:
> I found Kendra to be quite jarring when I read the book and so I
> thought I'd do a bit of quick research on the UK census. Well,
> specifically on the England census, thanks to Ancestry. 

Magpie:
Reading this over, I realized it sounded in my post like I was saying 
no name would have jarred me the same way, so I wanted to say it might 
have. Kendra didn't happen to jar me, although it did stand out, but 
there are plenty of other names that would have pulled me out just the 
way you're describing. 

a_svirn:
And the wand-lore thing is obviously recent too, or she would have
dropped a hint or two earlier. Take the whole Shrieking Shack
sequence in POA – first Sirius disarmed the Trio, then Trio disarmed
Sirius, then Remus disarmed Trio, then Snape disarmed Remus, then the
Trio disarmed Snape. What does it all mean in terms of the wand-lore?
And I don't even start on the training sessions in the Room of
Requirement.

Magpie:
Even worse for me is that it completely destroyed one of the primal 
pleasures of the Potterverse, the wand that chooses the Wizard. That's 
a fun idea, and it suggests your wand is part of yourself. That's the 
way it seems to work through most of the books. Then we find out that 
wands are completely traitorous. If somebody disarms you, either via 
expelliariumus or just by grabbing your wand, it will then become their 
wand, loyal to them. (Strange in a book that's also got the Muggleborn 
weeping about how her wand chose her--it's chosen whatever DE took it 
from her by now. And also Ollivander's telling us who all the wands 
belong to because he remembers--how would he know if they change owners 
so easily?) Harry gets to retain his palsy relationship with his old 
wand, but there seems little point to the previous wand lore about the 
woods, length and cores meaning anything when all that matters is 
force. Why not just go into Ollivander's, choose the one you want, and 
then expelliarimus it out of his hand?

<montavilla47 at ...> wrote:
>
>snip
>
> So, what didn't I like? I didn't like how inconsequential the
Malfoys
> were, given the build-up we'd had. I didn't like how absurdly
> inconsequential the life debt from Peter Pettigrew was, given how
> much Harry's mercy towards him cost. I didn't like how everyone
> in the Wizarding World (with the exception of Neville) sat on their
> butts for nine months and allowed Voldemort to take over without
> any effective resistance. I didn't like that Harry basically sat
on
> his butt for months without even sending a word of encouragement
> to the people who believed in him.

Susan responding:

Thought the Malfoys were quite central to the whole book -- showing
what happens to even the most faithful DEs UNLESS THEY ARE
SUCCESSFUL...demonstrating that even the most evil people can have a
shred of good in them....in HBP, Draco cannot kill DD and his mother
is willing to do whatever to save Draco, and in the DH both parents
are actually more concerned about their son than about the triumph of
Lord Voldemort..... 

Magpie:
The Malfoys were in the center, but not really doing anything, I think 
is the point. They didn't have much good in them. What happens to the 
most faithful DEs if they aren't successful was pretty obvious long 
before DH. The Malfoys, of course, were never wholly faithful. That 
just didn't lead to them actually doing much so their usefulness was 
pretty limited and they dithered a lot throughout the book.

Susan:
Here's where JKR's skill as an author becomes
apparent; I would never have thought I had anything good to say about
the Malfoys....

Magpie:
I've had good things to say about them until DH. Then they were a 
completely let down. Here I thought Draco's story in HBP was actually 
leading somewhere, that as a member of the younger generation he was a 
new way--but no, nothing anybody did really mattered except how it 
positioned Harry's actions at the end.

Susan:
WW sitting on their butts? Except for Neville? What
about Ginny, Luna, Xenophilius, was it Michael Corner who was
tortured for setting loose a first year?, all of the Potterwatch, all
of the Order of the Phoenix....all the people who were trying to save
Muggles?....and perhaps Harry had a few things on his mind,
struggling to survive, figure out the incomprehensible, find the
horcruxes, etc. etc. etc....?

Magpie:
yes, WW sitting on their butts, as this group shows. You've got a bunch 
of kids being mildly rebellious at school while they wait for Harry to 
come in and save them--nice, but that's no resistance movement. The 
OotP was a glorified taxi service, twice ferrying Harry from Privet 
Drive to the Dursleys without ever contributing anything to an actual 
resistance movement on their own. (Even stuff that seemed like it was 
leading that way turned out again to be useless.) People trying to save 
Muggles is barely anything--so they put some charms on their Muggle 
neighbors. That's not a resistance movement. And Potterwatch was an 
underground radio show. Xeno, too, printed one newspaper--nice, but 
this isn't a resistance movement. None of this is anywhere near any 
sort of resistance movement--everybody's just giving Harry support 
wherever he is. Harry who was also sitting on his butt for most of the 
book waiting for the next plot point and wondering about Dumbledore's 
admittedly and intentionally incomprehensible instructions. I think 
Muggle England would have given Voldemort far more of a run for his 
money.

-m