Some undead are less deader than others. There are quite a few works of fiction, where humans shtup vampires and sire children.

 

This is all irrelevant: Rowling said so little about vampires, there's just no point discussing what they're like in the HP Universe.

Do children of werewolves (like Teddy) get anything werewolf-related?

 

Nothing that's mentioned in canon. Maybe they get something small, like Bill Weasley's liking for rare steak he developed after getting attacked by Greyback.

Edit: Found something interesting on the wiki:

 

I realize that you can pretty much handwave everything happening in HP with "It's magic, ain't gotta explain shit" but it still makes me wonder how a female werewolf would actually manage to carry to full term what with the monthly transformations.

 

Question that doesn't particularly have to do with anything (and probably has already been talked about before), but when writing Fleur's dialogue, do people prefer to have a badly written accent, or to write it normally and use descriptors?

 

A " 'arry " here and there never hurt anyone. It's more a question of degree of usage. When it's used on words that are commonly known to be hard for french speakers to pronounce correctly and easily deciphered from context it adds to the character.

Just throwing in a 'in her french accent' doesn't quite have the same effect.

On the other hand it's super easy to overuse them and end up annoying the reader.

 

Yes, this, so much. When writing an accent in-character, a little goes a LONG way. JKR did it very well - go back and read some of her Hagrid dialogue. You can hear it in your head, but it never stops you on the page as you read where you have to think for a second what the word actually is.

If you're unsure, err on the side of "less accent."

 

It's better to err on the side of caution when it comes to accent and dialect in speech, imo. Also, what I absolutely can't stand - luckily I've only seen it done once or twice so far - is an author writing Fleur's dialog completely in French with the translation in parenthesis.

 

Hope that was real French and not something Google Translate coughed up.

 

Naming Hermione's parents Danielle and Emmet Granger: clever meta-joke, or head-deskingly stupid?

 

Stupid.

/10char

 

I read that one in a Fic where everyone's gender is reversed. Spoiler Alert: the Girl-Harry and Guy-Hermione almost immediately end up together.

You know, one of these days I want to see someone name her father Rupert, just to spite all those annoying Dan/Emma people.

 

Quick question: Is Voldemort not being able to love because of being conceived under a love potion canon or fanon?

 

Fanon. /10char

 

Whether it's canon or not depends on how you view the status of JKR interviews and how you interpret this statement:

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/07/30/j-k-rowling-web-chat-transcript/

It seems to me that she's saying the love potion is not the real cause of Voldemort's inability to love. Rather it's that be "came from a loveless union". That seems to set his default character to "evil", which could have been reversed by being raised in a loving way. But since he wasn't, he remained evil.

 

The 'love potion' -> 'no love' thing is not canon. It is a piece of out-of-universe symbolism, not in-universe metaphysics. Rowling explicitly destroys the idea in the very quote it is introduced.

Source

 

I put a blanket statement on all of her interviews as being non-canon, even if what she says actually is canon. She has the tendency to do a fanservice on obscure things that don't really make sense in canon, so she'll make something up that sounds plausible 10 or 15 years after she actually wrote that part in the books.

It's these small details like the love potion story that make people suddenly see with clarity and go OMG. Chances are, she came up with it long after the fact, since in canon, it doesn't really matter at all. It's impossible for every single "easter egg" to be genuine (though there are probably a lot that are)

 

I put a blanket statement on all her interviews as canon, even if they contradict each other.

 

Then let me ask this: How "cannon" is it that a wizard or witch under the imperious curse is able to cast unforgivables upon another person?

I have seen it written that this was the case with Malfoy, Rosmerta, and Katie Bell(potterwiki). And Victor Krum "claimed" to be under the curse himself (though being the student of a deatheater and a school that teaches the dark arts . . . yeah not just going to buy that). It just doesn't seem that a person under the effects of the imperious would be able to produce the proper mind set to cast an unforgivable.

And I can't find or remember anything in the books saying so.

 

Malfoy put Rosmerta under the Imperius, Rosmerta then put Katie under the Imperius.

What mind set is that?

Regardless, here's what a person under the Imperius curse is like when it's been cast properly:

From this sequence it would seem that the idea of an Imperius victim being a mindless puppet (as in GoF scenes with Moody) seems to be limited to the most basic use of the curse. A person under the Imperius acts and thinks exactly like they normally would do so. They just so happen to have certain behaviours "programmed" into them that they will perform unknowingly.