Arthur seems to be a pretty decent enchanter as well. He gets in trouble relatively often (IIRC) for enchanting Muggle things (including the Ford Anglia), which would add a pretty cool magical component to his obsession.

 

This sounds like a "cycle of poverty" example in a high school textbook.

 

Will The Santi's "Harry Potter and the Boy Who Lived" ever be continued or will it forever remain abandoned?

 

I've heard talk that JK is planning to continue the HP series is this true? I have also heard that there is supposed to be a musical. Is this what people are talking about or what?
Needless to say I have seen nothing concrete and I'm wondering if this is just a fan rumor?

 

There's also the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them film that's in early development. Both it and the theater production/play — itself not necessarily a musical — are still in the writing process so I wouldn't hold my breath for anything new anytime soon. Rowling herself is working on her Robert Galbraith books (the sequel to Cuckoo's Calling was just announced a few days ago. It will be called The Silkworm).

 

Here and here.

Reading the last page of the library thread gives you the information you need. It is listed as abandoned, has not been updated for years, so the chances are very, very slim.

But there is hope one day The Santi will grace us with his presence again. I know he still checks this site out from looking at his profile to see his last visited date. One day.

 

The likelihood of its being abandoned is pretty high at this point. Shit happens when authors of good stories get lives. (See Joe.)

 

Well shit. I first read the story on FFN last June, in fact it was the very first HP fanfic that I read, and then today, completely by accident I stumbled across the extra chapters which were never posted on FFN, though I don't know why.

What a bloody shame.

 

If the success of that story was anything to go by, he's probably writing something of his own.

I would if I had that kind of talent.

 

No, in the sense of dualism. The charm itself is created by conjuring good memories, which is a way of triggering great feelings. So if the charm isn't created by good memories/feelings, then by definition it can't be a Patronus Charm. There's no equal but opposite, one to one dualism here. A charm created by bad memories/feelings is something very different, and in a way, we already see that in the books . . . sort of. The Cruciatus Curse can only be cast with a desire to really cause pain, to hurt someone. It's something that comes from deep in the soul, and possible could be described as very dark/black feelings towards someone.

The Killing Curse seems to operate the same way, which is at least part of the reason fake!Moody said the kids in class couldn't kill him with it (others will argue it's more a control of magic, but I think it's both).

So in short, no, by definition, there can't be a "Dark" Patronus Charm, since you can't use bad memories to create a Patronus.*


*This of course, exclude the idea of a different type of Charm that may approximate a Patronus, but created in a different way with bad memories.

 

Hmm, then are you saying that Bellatrix casting a patronus by remembering how happy she was when torturing the Longbottoms won't work?

 

Well happiness is relative, so she probably could. What couldn't happen is Harry managing to cast one by, say . . . remembering that time Sirius died.

A negative equivalent to the Patronus, as Aekiel mentioned, might be something like Fiendfyre, or the very thing Patronuses were made to fight: Dementors.

I always felt like they might have been the consequence of some botched (necromantic) project undertaken by some ancient Dark wizard with too much time and power on his hands. I'm looking at you, Herpo.

Perhaps wizards who had their Horcrux (or Horcruxes) destroyed manifest as Dementors after a time.

 

Fucking ninja'd, but I doubt that the memory would have been a happy enough one anyway. Voldemort had just died and all that.

 

Oh man, I like this idea. Fuck me that's an awesome idea.

 

Heh, thanks. I think she might have ruled it out with Word of God too, which is disappointing, but yeah . . . it was too tempting not to put in writing.

The Fiendfyre thing you mentioned was my headcanon as well, and something I always thought would have been cool.

EDIT: Might also explain why they liked Voldemort so much.

 

I don't think they liked Voldemort at all in any particular sense of the word. He simply offered them the freedom to roam and feast on as many souls as they like.

 

Interesting idea. It reminds me of that saying "If man had generally bad life and broke law too many times, he will be reborn as woman after his death. It pretty much means that all women are in fact men during their punishment."

 

Simple question. Why was Tom Riddle unaffected by basilisk’s eye-magic? Did parseltongue give him some kind of protection?

 

Did he look into the snake's eyes? I think you and the basilisk have to lock eyes for it to kill you.

P.S.: Does the gaze of a dead basilisk still carry the same risks?

 

Parseltongue is just language. I don't think that there is more to that.

Snakes have transparent eye lids. Maybe closing these lids would prevent Basilisks from pertifying someone.

Also, we don't actually know how petrification (deathly gaze) works. It's possible that Basilisks can choose if they want to petrify (or kill) someone.

EDIT: I have this strange idea... Maybe Salazar Slytherin put some curse on parseltongue ability, so that only his direct descendants would have it? It would explain why no other pureblood family has it, when clearly Gaunts had to intermingle with other families too, from time to time (surely Merope was not only one who decided to settle in with someone other than their own family). It would also mean that Harry would lose parseltongue ability along with losing Horcrux.