Actually I seem to recall that she indeed brought a batch...

 

I think Crouch junior confirmed that during his interrogation by Dumbledore. This is a rough quote from memory:

"..she kept taking it [Polyjuice] until she died."

 

I doubt for one they routinely check their prisoners every hour, and two they definitely would not bury a body just one hour after finding it dead.

Some of these prisoners, say for example Barty Crouch Jr., have family, and fathers that are very powerful or have powerful friends. They would not just discard a body once they find it dead, especially a body of someone's whose family at one time was in the public eye. That would be beyond fucked up even by their standards.

 

I don't think it'd really matter if she reverted or not. IIRC, Dementors don't really see the same way (could be fanon, though). So they might not even be caring who their burying at that point. And though there's many fanfics that have humans working at Azkaban, I don't recall that in canon, either.

 

They definitely have different senses. Sirius says they left him alone when he was a dog.

 

I often read, whether here on DLP or various fanfics, that Harry can study all he like, be the best he can be, but that he will still lack the experience and years that Voldemort has on him. This got me curious about Nicolas Flamel.

I mean, he's lived for more than six centuries now, surely he could take down Voldemort if they but asked him, since using that kind of logic Voldemort couldn't possibly beaten him due to Flamel having an advantage in years.

So my question is: could Flamel have defeated Voldemort if they fought and was he a powerful wizard?

 

Wasn't Flamel just an alchemist?

 

Yeah. I see Flamel as some whitebeard weirdo living in seclusion who doesn't concern himhelf with such trivial things as wars. He is probably holed up in some ancient house with his wife, doing his research and contemplating meaning of life.

 

I recall a one-shot that explained why Dumbledore protected the Stone on Flamel's behalf - because Flamel was really a muggle alchemist.

If someone had read this piece as well (on FF.net), please let me know what the name is. Much appreciated.

 

Now there is something new and refreshing. I must find this story.

 

Quick question.

The surname of the family of wandmakers is: Ollivander
The shop name is: Ollivanders

So, how would you refer to the shop, when speaking of the shop that Mr. Ollivander owns:

• Ollivander's shop (grammatically correct, but many would assume it's a misspelling of Ollivanders Wand shop).
  
  
• Ollivanders shop (grammatically incorrect, but there's no confusing with the name).
  
  
• The wand shop Mr. Ollivander owns (grammatically correct and doesn't confuse the name, but is clunky in context).
  
  
• Other

 

One of the things I'm working on now is keeping my readers immersed in the story. So I'm working through how something that may be grammatically correct can still be narratively wrong in context, or the inverse (grammatically incorrect being more accepted).

I've come across "whom" that while proper, in the context it was written in actually broke immersion for me. Certain circumlocutions for ending sentences with prepositions have done the same. Obviously, misspelling and name confusion will do that as well, which is the impetus behind my question.

 

Ollivanders

... which is short for 'wands made by Ollivanders, one or more, but we didn't want to keep changing the sign for Ollivander and son(s) and daughter(s) also a nephew and two cousins. Suffice to say, this is where the Ollivanders as a clan sell the wands they make'.

 

In what I'm thinking, it's more about the audience than the story. I know at least for me, when I read a sentence that is technically correct, but doesn't follow usual constructions, it throws me off and I start focusing on the words, rather than what the words say.

Of course, now that I'm thinking about it, since they're already in the shop, I can say "the wand shop" and sidestep it completely.

 

"Ollivanders' wand shop"?

Our Ollivander does come from a long line of wand-makers, does he not?

I'd go with Ollivander's though, because it can be a reference to his current ownership and thus grammatically correct. It doesn't have to be the actualy shop's name so much as a description of the shop as it currently exists as "Ollivander's."

 

I'm really not seeing the discussion here. The name of the shop is "Ollivanders". We know that from canon.

It's a possessive that has left out the apostrophe, as often is the case in titles such as shop names and the names of movies. When you refer to something by name, you use the name it uses -- the proper noun. And the name of the shop is "Ollivanders".

 

And thus, the reason why I posted it here. Had I written "Ollivander(')s the opposite of what each of you thought it should be, would you have caught it and thought that it was wrong?

If so, that's exactly what I'm talking about with avoiding pulling someone from full immersion.

 

No, because both are reasonable enough to be correct. There are plenty of brands that use apostrophes, like McDonald's, and plenty of that don't, like Barclays. The accepted nature of this inconsistency is what makes it a trivial issue. People will be perfectly happy with whichever form you chose.