our subject isn't cool, but he fakes it anyway
[ну и на фоне очередных попыток читать Драмионы (попытки снова провальные, черт...)]
There are a lot of Harry Potter theories that have existed in the series’ fandom, such as Snape being a vampire or Sirius and Remus being secret lovers. Many of these theories have been contradicted by the books themselves, and others seem to have little evidence supporting them in canon.
One such theory, however, bears notice. Draco Malfoy is an annoying antagonist throughout all seven Harry Potter books, but noticeably less so in the sixth and seventh. Presumably, he stops his sophomoric pranks as a consequence of his highly stressful year-long assignment to play a key role in the assassination of Albus Dumbledore.
However, there may be an even more powerful reason for the trajectory of Draco’s character development in these latter books. This is that between the fifth and sixth books, directly after Lucius Malfoy has failed to retrieve the prophecy, Voldemort allows Fenrir Greyback to bite his son, Draco.
We’ve gone back through the 6th and 7th books, and compiled some of the most convincing evidence below:
Draco is not a Death Eater
At the beginning of the 6th book when Harry is hiding in Borgin and Burkes, Draco threatens Borgin, and shows him something on his arm. Harry thinks the thing on Draco’s arm is a Dark Mark, but we never see this.
Harry always immediately assumes things and they turn out to be false. If Harry wakes up in the middle of the night months later it is usually right, or if he talks about it with Hermione and Hermione gets it, then it’s right. Hermione doesn’t think Draco is a Death Eater, so he probably isn’t.
Another reason Draco probably doesn’t have a Dark Mark is that at the end of the sixth book there is a barrier to the Astronomy Tower that you can only pass through if you have a Dark Mark. This barrier goes up immediately after Draco goes up to the tower, and comes down just before he goes down.
Additionally, Draco is never treated as a Death Eater (and there is no reason for Voldemort to give Draco a Dark Mark).
So what is he?читать дальше
One such theory, however, bears notice. Draco Malfoy is an annoying antagonist throughout all seven Harry Potter books, but noticeably less so in the sixth and seventh. Presumably, he stops his sophomoric pranks as a consequence of his highly stressful year-long assignment to play a key role in the assassination of Albus Dumbledore.
However, there may be an even more powerful reason for the trajectory of Draco’s character development in these latter books. This is that between the fifth and sixth books, directly after Lucius Malfoy has failed to retrieve the prophecy, Voldemort allows Fenrir Greyback to bite his son, Draco.
We’ve gone back through the 6th and 7th books, and compiled some of the most convincing evidence below:
Draco is not a Death Eater
At the beginning of the 6th book when Harry is hiding in Borgin and Burkes, Draco threatens Borgin, and shows him something on his arm. Harry thinks the thing on Draco’s arm is a Dark Mark, but we never see this.
Harry always immediately assumes things and they turn out to be false. If Harry wakes up in the middle of the night months later it is usually right, or if he talks about it with Hermione and Hermione gets it, then it’s right. Hermione doesn’t think Draco is a Death Eater, so he probably isn’t.
Another reason Draco probably doesn’t have a Dark Mark is that at the end of the sixth book there is a barrier to the Astronomy Tower that you can only pass through if you have a Dark Mark. This barrier goes up immediately after Draco goes up to the tower, and comes down just before he goes down.
Additionally, Draco is never treated as a Death Eater (and there is no reason for Voldemort to give Draco a Dark Mark).
So what is he?читать дальше
\\\ Мне кстати очень нравится headcanon, что Лаванда выживает и становится оборотнем. Они бы с Роном были отличной парой в таком формате.
А также после обсуждения вечного вопроса "Чем ужасен эпилог?" пришла к выводу, что он не только не подходит миллениалам, но и вообще-то ценностям XX века, даже не XXI. Как только люди получили право на развод, они очень активно стали им пользоваться. Мы как посмотрели по своим семьям, чуть ли не каждая вторая бабушка (и прабабушка) была замужем дважды, если не больше. Почему-то только бабушки... Так что эта роулинговская хрень с тем, что ВСЕ переженились на своих high school sweethearts и всё у них was well - это из куда более дремучих времен)