(no subject)

[heidi]

[Poll #677461]

Comments

[kimmyblair.livejournal.com]

I love JKR... I really do... but her math skilz are not so good...

Poor JKR...

[thunderemerald.livejournal.com]

The thing is, the way Sirius says it in GoF made me wonder ANYWAY if they were still at school. The Lestranges. A MARRIED COUPLE. Now, I know it's possible that they could've gotten married while still in school, but it's not very likely, I think. And why does "part of a gang of Slytherins" necessarily mean "part of a gang of Slytherins who were all still in school"? We've seen in canon how what house you're in can influence the rest of your life -- so why would they stop identifying with Slytherin house just because they've left school? And since Sirius is the one talking -- Sirius, with his anti-Slytherin thing going on -- wouldn't it make sense that he would group them together in such a way regardless of whether or not they were all still at Hogwarts?

As for Snape being a part of that gang, we've also seen how freaking inbred these purebloods are. It stands to reason that they would see each other outside of school, so the "gang" they formed didn't necessarily have to be school-based. For all we know, the rest of the gang was Bellatrix's age, or at least graduated by Snape' fourth or fifth year. That would also explain the "loner" side of Snape we always see in canon. Why, for instance, would he have invested so much of his interest in figuring out where Remus was going every month, if he had his own gang to keep him occupied?

Just a thought.

[greyandgrey.livejournal.com]

You know, that's a great point. Jo does seem very into the idea that your school house determines (or at the very least indicates) the type of person you are. Also, Sirius does have the bad habit of using the terms "Slytherin" and "Death Eater" somewhat interchangably...

As to Snape, it definitely follows that he wouldn't have friends or any kind of "gang" at school, or at least not based at school.

[psychic-serpent.livejournal.com]

Words out of my mouth. Somehow I never assumed that they were all at school together (as in the same year, like Snape, Lily and MWPP). FWIW, the Snape who was attacked by James in "Snape's Worst Memory" appeared to have NO backup in the form of a "gang", and he was only in fifth year there, with two more to go before finishing school.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

But here's the context:

Snape knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in seventh year and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters.'' Sirius held up his fingers, and began ticking off names. ''Rosier and Wilkes - they were both killed by Aurors the year before Voldermot fell. The Lestranges - they're a married couple - they're in Azkaban...''

Of course Rosier and Wilkes weren't killed when they were part of Snape's gang - they were alive. And Avery, mentioned in that paragraph as well, later on< said he was under the Imperius curse. So the strong implication is that the Lestranges were a married couple later, not when Snape arrived at Hogwarts, and not when he was "part of a gang of Slytherins..."

So while I think it's fair to assume they weren't all in school together, I actually think the implication in GoF is that, in fact, they were.

[musesfool.livejournal.com]

The family tree is missing people Sirius explictly mentioned were on the tapestry, so for me, the book has to take precedence over whatever scribblings Rowling puts out or whatever she says in interviews.

I keep thinking it must be an earlier draft of the tapestry she eventually ended up using in the book. Or she didn't go back to the book when she scribbled it out for charity. Either way, it ain't canon.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

The whole tapestry goes back to the Middle Ages, so of course the bit JKR's released is missing people--it's only a small segment of it. There are hundreds of people not on the drawing who would have been in the tapestry (which would be wider, as well as longer).

[musesfool.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, but it oughtn't be missing people she actually names in the text. After all, it's not a real tapestry, it's a tool to help her tell her story.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

Isn't that rather up to her? I don't know if she drew up the bit that was auctioned off specially from her notes, whether it was something she worked from herself or whether it's part of a much larger family tree that she has drawn herself. No-one does, so how can we possibly say if she's got it wrong?

I also think she's written out a simplified version of the family tree, because of the unnamed sons and daughters, which may well actually be named on the tapestry--although I'm speculaing here. Whether she's left them off to make life easier or to deliberately withold information from us, I don't know.

It's possible that JKR made a mistake with Araminta--these things happen. But it's equally possible that she didn't and that she knows exactly where she sits on the tapestry but hasn't told us.

[musesfool.livejournal.com]

Sure, any of that's possible. It could be a copy of an early draft before she named Araminta. It could be she doesn't want us to know things, so she's withholding them, much as Harry didn't see the name Potter on the tapestry because... of some unknown reason that may be important to the plot later. It could be whatever she wants it to be. What it is not, is canon, until it appears in the books.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm not going to argue about whether or not it's canon, because there's no consensus about that and people have different definitions of what constitutes canon anyway. All I'm saying is that the absence of one or other character doesn't make it wrong or not canon in and of itself.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Does everyone want to call Araminta "Minty" like the green My Little Pony?

[goldie-black.livejournal.com]

Sirius last saw Bellatrix before she left Hogwarts right? So this means that Bellatrix can't be any more than what, seven years older than Sirius? And when was he born? 'nuff said.

[thunderemerald.livejournal.com]

Last seeing her before she left Hogwarts doesn't necessarily mean the last time he saw her was AT Hogwarts. *shrug* She could've just not had anything to do with him after she graduated, for one reason or another.

OT: Carbon Leaf!

[phoenixsong]

Hee, you have CL icons! This makes me happy. s:)

Re: OT: Carbon Leaf!

[thunderemerald.livejournal.com]

Of course I do -- BEST! BAND! EVER! I take it you're a fan?

[grrliz.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Sirius says he was around Harry's age in OotP (i.e. 15) when he last saw Bellatrix; if he last saw her at school, that would make her 17 (or 18, max), which is pretty much impossible since Narcissa would be at least 19 if not 20 at that point. He couldn't have last seen her at school.

[goldie-black.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah! He hadn't seen her since he was about Harry's age. I was confusing it with the cave conversation. LOL So they're separated by what, 8 years? Regulus was a couple years younger than Sirius, right?

I need to finish OOP and HBP. *sigh*

[notmonica.livejournal.com]

Exactly! Sirius was born in 1959-7yrs after Bellatrix.

[asphodeline.livejournal.com]

I refuse to believe any of these dates although have recently decided she might have got it right - if twelve/thriteen is appropriate wizarding age to have children then producing one at forty would indeed seem very late!!

[kennahijja.livejournal.com]

I'll go with GoF - at least it's canon... And unless little Blacks are *extremely* precocious, I'll be inclined to take the dates on the family tree with a load of salt anyway... (though it's neat for the names and family connections).

[nimori.livejournal.com]

I'm inclined to think Snape went to school with Rodolphus rather than both of them, and that Bella is a dirty cradle-robber. It seems to be the fashion with the Blacks. ;)

[starrysummer.livejournal.com]

Books take canon precedence over other material, imo. Yes, the information in a book is just a collection of allusions that indicate very strongly that Bellatrix was born a few years after 1951 and the family tree is an actual date. But 1951 is not the only date in the tree that seems a bit off. Another reason to go with the books, even if it is possible to create a detailed enough explanation to reconcile the two. But Bellatrix was born in 1951 and didn't start school until later or there's another pair of Lestranges who are married and both Death Eaters? It just makes more sense that she messed up the maths again.

[jsmitty-o.livejournal.com]

I, um, just finished book 6 yesterday and I realized I *really* need to go back and read the others to get some of the little details I know I missed. But this thread is making me wonder... is there a webpage somewhere that shows the family tree, canon or not? At the very least, I'd like to see all the names and connections. I just can't seem to make one in my head on my own. =P

Also, I'm a little bit confused about the timing of Tom Riddle's life because didn't book 6 say that there was a horse and carriage when Dumbledore visited Tom's orphanage? That really threw me for a loop! I assumed that meant it was around 1900 which seemed really really odd to me. But maybe I misread.

Oh, and I'd like to publicly thank the whole world for not spoiling or letting slip what happens in book 6. I can't believe I hadn't heard about the ending before I read the book. That's a minor miracle right there.

[midnightbex.livejournal.com]

I'm taking the view that Jo just can't do math and therefore incorrectly figured Bellatrix's birth year. It could be that she started late, but in the Black family I don't think that'd be allowed.

[ex-ms-katoni171.livejournal.com]

Whoever said her time at Hogwarts had to overlap with Sirius's? They're family members! They don't have to have been at school together to see each other. And the gang of Slytherins that Snape was part of could have run for several years with a changing membership.

[cleverthylacine]

Stopped caring what JKR said about anything on 7/17/05 :D

[grrliz.livejournal.com]

I won't really have any particular problem rectifying Bellatrix's date of birth because I don't feel it actually contradicts any of the other content we've been given. I've thought pretty much along the same lines as thunderemerald above: the "gang of Slytherins" is just that, a gang made up of Slytherins, and that's a fairly amorphous term that can be interpreted any number of ways without actually comitting itself to any particular place in the timeline. If Sirius had said that Snape was friends with these people while at Hogwarts, we'd have a problem, but he doesn't and that leaves everything wide open.

Book canon obviously takes precedent over anything else JKR may say, but I think people need to put down the reflexive "she's bad at maths" argument regarding Bellatrix and really take a look at whether or not what we know actually contradicts what we've learned from this updated family tree. [I don't think it does, but I understand that others disagree.]

I agree that JKR is bad at maths in general, but I'm less concerned about how this plays out regarding Bellatrix and Snape and more concerned about why she has at least three male members of the Black family fathering children before the age of fifteen. That is where JKR has truly screwed up her maths. Then again, she's now made chan canon, so I suppose that segment of fandom would be saying that she hasn't screwed up her maths in that instance. :D

[ex-theatrica309.livejournal.com]

...apparently the fandom at large is no better than JKR at maths. *grins*

Seriously, though? I don't listen to her at ALL when it comes to dates. Ever since the deal with the Weasley sibs' dates/ages, I have not trusted her to calculate anything, ever, for her life.

I just don't think she puts a huge amount of thought into dates, and she just throws these guesstimates out there and everyone goes "...wait, what? Jo, what are you talking about?" And utter madness ensues.

[alyxbradford.livejournal.com]

Frankly, JKR's math skills are just so horrendous that I refuse to acknowledge that family tree's existence. I'm pretty sure she just whipped it out for that auction without putting any real thought to it. The books totally contradict what it says, and in my opinion, books trump any other source of canon.

Plus... if the one they've got on the Lexicon is entirely correct... Bella's father would be thirteen when she was born. And I don't think even the Blacks are that warped.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

We don't have a confirmed date of birth for Snape, all we have are guesses based on appropriate ages given by JKR in interviews. Also, there's no canon that says for sure that Snape was at school at the same time as Bellatrix, that's merely an inference drawn from Sirius' comments in GoF.

I think fandom is a bit too quick to point the finger at the author and say, 'ha, she's rubbish at maths, she got it wrong,' when we don't even have all the information we need to work it out ourselves. If JKR did say Snape was born in, say, 1959 and that he was at school at the same time as Bellatrix, then yes, she's made a mistake somewhere. (Unless there is some good reason why Bellatrix was held back or something.) But she hasn't--much of this is fandom supposition.

Besides, much of the information from the tree is what some bloke from the Lexicon copied off a framed picture isn't it? There's always the possiblility that he wrote some of the dates down wrong. (Although I'll assume he didn't until I know for sure.)

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

But between GoF and OotP, she gave his age, during an online chat, as "35 or 36". It's been unclear if that was as of PS/SS or OotP, but it's guidance. If it was as of ps/ss, then the Bellatrix dates are more reasonable for them to overlap at Hogwarts, though, even if not in the same year (which I never thought they were anyway).

[grrliz.livejournal.com]

I assumed that the 35/36 comment was meant to apply to the most recent book published at the time, which would be GoF since I think she said that around 2000? (Don't quote me on that though.) Either way, though, I haven't really seen anyone explain why it's important that Bellatrix and Snape do have some overlap in their schooling, not just their gang membership. I think what we're supposed to be taking as important from Sirius' statements is the relationships that overlap and how that develops both the plot (the Death Eaters Sirius mentions — save Wilkes — all go on to be relevant later in the book) or the characters (Snape is suddenly confirmed as having been hanging around with a pretty dodgy crowd of people, which foreshadows the revelation that he himself was a Death Eater). Snape attending school with Bellatrix at any point seems fairly immaterial to me since it really doesn't have any bearing on any of this stuff. Which is why I have little trouble justifying Bellatrix's advanced age in comparison to Snape, since I can't see how it matters. :)

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

No constructive comment - just icon lurve!

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, I knew about that. It was one of the comments I was referrring to when I said she'd given us 'approximate' ages. I hadn't thought of the possibility that she meant that was his age in the first book, but you're right, it could well mean that.

I like the way you call that comment 'guidance'--it's a good description. I think it's unreasonable for fen to extropolate information from those sort of comments and treat them as hard facts, and then accuse JKR of messing up when they don't align with other information she has given us. The date of Bellatrix's birth is written down in black and white, so I set more store by that than a date worked out by fans based on vague information which JKR was asked off the top of her head. She probably has all the right dates written down at home somewhere.

[teshara.livejournal.com]

Who says she wasn't there as some form of teacher?

[moony]

Eh, she was left back a lot. ;-)

[a-t-rain.livejournal.com]

I think I'm going to ignore the dates on the family tree, because honestly, they make no sense (not just the Bellatrix thing -- there are all those teenaged mothers and fathers, and the Blacks apparently have, if anything, shorter lifespans on average than Muggles. It also seems really weird to have Dumbledore and Phineas be exact contemporaries when we know there was at least one headmaster between them.) However, if I were going to try to reconcile those dates with canon, I think the simplest way to make it work is that MWPP were born a few years earlier than we thought -- say, 1955-ish. The only statements JKR has made on this point are that Snape is "35 or 36" in GoF and that Sirius was "about 22" when he went to Azkaban, both of which sound more like approximations than exact figures -- and when you come right down to it, there's only one piece of canon evidence that the books take place in 1991-98 anyway, and that might have been something that she tossed in casually without really working out a full timeline.

[prettyveela.livejournal.com]

I wish JKR would just come out and either explain or tell the fandom to not take her little chart as canon and go back to having fun. I hate math so I'm not even thinking about it really.

[ani-bester.livejournal.com]

Umm I'm going with the was given a blank paper and told to make something, She made this. The relations my be ok, but anything involving ages and dates is probably not.

I'm also for more concerned with what she just said about secret keepers. *L*

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

I think I would rather she made a pretty pony. But then Dan probably wouldn't've been UberW00bie and purchased it.

[sandy-phoenix.livejournal.com]

Well, was this family tree something she made up to sell for charity or was it part of her original notes?

If it was part of her notes, I don't think we should get to excited about dates. Things get changed and adjusted as the writing goes on. I think the interrelation of families would be the more important part of this tree and we can let the dates and the wonky maths that accompany them out of it.

That's my take, anyway.

Squaring the Circle

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

Rowling is only off by a year. She's done this *exact* same thing before. This is the whole Weasley muddle all over again. She is once again mechanically spacing kids 2 years apart, having forgotten that that a mechanical 2 year apart progression doesn't add up to what else she has already told us about them. It works as a schematic, but not for a detailed analysis. And since this is peripheral to the story she is telling she hasn't gone in and given it the fine-tuning it needs.

From where I'm standing, for purposes of theorizing; canon trumps quasi-canon. She is allowed to make minor mistakes in statements made off the top of her head. She is allowed to make minor arithmatical mistakes in her notes. And we are allowed to dismiss these mistakes. I think that the donated geneology chart can be ranked as part of her notes. But it isn't impossible to square the circle and have both.

What is in the actual books takes precidence over everything not in the books. In the books, the Lestranges, "a married couple now in Azkaban" were at school with Snape.

If Bella had been born in the fall of '52, rather than '51, we would be back to where we started. No problem.

At the other end of the equation, if we dismiss statements from interviews and the website (i.e., NOT in the books) which are *obviously* inexact, we are also safe. Rowling states on the official site that Sirius Black was "around 22" when he was sent up. This would have established his birth year an 1959. But it can also be read as inexact.

Even more obviously inexact is the original statement that Snape was "35 or 36" made at the time GoF was released. Since this is the statement that started this whole caper and is the basis for all of our calculations, we are understandably reluctant to turn loose of it, but there is *no question* that this statement is unclear and *inexact*.

If we recast both of these statements as "close but no cigar" then we have the Marauders cohort born in '58. They started in the Autumn of '69, and finished with the class of '76.

Bella, born in the Autumn of '51 would be an older 7th year at the time they were Firsties. Andromeda anything up to a year and a half younger (no more than that. Tonks was born in '73) is a 5th or 6th year and Narcissia is a 4th year.

There are now 5 years between the Marauder cohort finishing Hogwarts and Voldemort's first fall. Snape was 23 when he took up his teaching career. And Sirius was 23 when he was sent up. He may have recently turned 23. We never found out when his birthday was.

The Prophecy was still made at some point in 1980. (Unless it was made about the time of the child's conception, which is a possibility I have not seriously considered, but a possibility nevertheless.)

The only thing that I can see might be lost by this reassignment is the minor point that if Quirrell, who from his own statement had clearly been around to have seen something of the Snape vs. Potter conflict, was still in school when Snape started teaching, he would have been too young to have ever actually been a Death Eater. And I think that we can still fit that in if Quirrell was a first year when the Marauder cohort was in their 7th.

We still even have Molly safely out of Hogwarts before the willow was planted, since Bill's birth in November 1970 suggests that she finished no later than the class of '69, which would have been at the start of the summer before the Marauders started.

We now have Regulus 3 years younger than Sirius, finishing school in the summer of '79 and dead by the end of the year. The '79 death date for Regulus Black is the only thing we have which is a direct contradiction of what is stated in canon. 1979 would NOT be "15 years earlier" from a vantage point of August 1995. I am hesitant to do anything but take note of the contradiction, since it is yet unclear whether Rowling intecnds to use it for something.

Otherwise we have no contradictions with anything actually in the text of the books. And Sirius's dates are inaccessible since he is represented by a burn hole.