WTF happened to Amos Diggory?

I mean, his son was murdered by Tom Riddle at the end of TGOF, and you NEVER hear from him again?!

Why wasn't he one of the first to come out in support of Dumbledore and Harry when they kept telling everyone that Tom Riddle had returned?

12/26/2010 5:54:06 PM

he killed himself

12/26/2010 8:22:12 PM

i imagine he smoked some wizard weed and went into hiding, hoping he wouldn't get his bitch ass greenblasted

12/26/2010 8:31:00 PM

good question! he's not even mentioned in the last book, if i recall correctly, which is strange because a lot of random names were dropped then

[Edited on December 26, 2010 at 9:49 PM. Reason : ]

12/26/2010 9:48:53 PM

Even if he had, The Daily Prophet would've likely ignored him and thus no one would've heard. I don't remember how the Prophet dealt with explaining Cedric's death, but if an eye-witness account and Dumbledore's word weren't enough, what difference would Amos make?

12/26/2010 9:55:55 PM

And he probably didn't want to be separated from his wife either to go off and fight, or put her in any danger.

12/26/2010 10:02:00 PM

i think it was basically called a freak accident by the ministry & the prophet, even though dumbledore told everyone it was voldemort

12/26/2010 10:12:20 PM

NERD ALERT

12/26/2010 10:16:35 PM

finally a thread i can enjoy

12/27/2010 12:19:19 AM

Quote :

"And he probably didn't want to be separated from his wife either to go off and fight, or put her in any danger."

Funk that. Put yourself in his shoes: Your son is dead, and a boy whom--until this point--has been heralded as the best thing to happen to the Wizarding World (HP) is telling everyone that Lord Voldemort killed your son and has returned. And the second-best person in the WW (and who was the former Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot) believes him.

What do you do?

You go into hiding to protect your wife?

Hellz no!

You whip out your own wand and join the Order of the Phoenix. You've got skin in the game!

12/27/2010 12:36:18 AM

hmm even the Harry Potter wiki says his "fate after the Second Wizarding War is unknown."

maybe Rowling will follow him with a new series

seriously though, I doubt she'll ever write again. I mean she wrote a masterpiece and everything else would just be measured against it and would probably fall short. Plus she's richer than the Queen so there isn't much incentive there

12/27/2010 2:45:20 AM

Quote :

"I mean she wrote a masterpiece"

12/27/2010 9:37:03 AM

Quote :

"Wall Street Journal - July 11, 2000 Can 35 Million Book Buyers Be Wrong? Yes. By Harold Bloom, a professor at Yale. His most recent book is "How to Read and Why" (Scribner, 2000). Taking arms against Harry Potter, at this moment, is to emulate Hamlet taking arms against a sea of troubles. By opposing the sea, you won't end it. The Harry Potter epiphenomenon will go on, doubtless for some time, as J.R.R. Tolkien did, and then wane. The official newspaper of our dominant counter-culture, The New York Times, has been startled by the Potter books into establishing a new policy for its not very literate book review. Rather than crowd out the Grishams, Clancys, Crichtons, Kings and other vastly popular prose fictions on its fiction bestseller list, the Potter volumes will now lead a separate children's list. J. K. Rowling, the chronicler of Harry Potter, thus has an unusual distinction: She has changed the policy of the policy-maker. Imaginative Vision I read new children's literature, when I can find some of any value, but had not tried Rowling until now. I have just concluded the 300 pages of the first book in the series, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," purportedly the best of the lot. Though the book is not well written, that is not in itself a crucial liability. It is much better to see the movie, "The Wizard of Oz," than to read the book upon which it was based, but even the book possessed an authentic imaginative vision. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" does not, so that one needs to look elsewhere for the book's (and its sequels') remarkable success. Such speculation should follow an account of how and why Harry Potter asks to be read. The ultimate model for Harry Potter is "Tom Brown's School Days" by Thomas Hughes, published in 1857. The book depicts the Rugby School presided over by the formidable Thomas Arnold, remembered now primarily as the father of Matthew Arnold, the Victorian critic-poet. But Hughes's book, still quite readable, was realism, not fantasy. Rowling has taken "Tom Brown's School Days" and re-seen it in the magical mirror of Tolkien. The resultant blend of a schoolboy ethos with a liberation from the constraints of reality-testing may read oddly to me, but is exactly what millions of children and their parents desire and welcome at this time. In what follows, I may at times indicate some of the inadequacies of "Harry Potter." But I will keep in mind that a host are reading it who simply will not read superior fare, such as Kenneth Grahame's "The Wind in the Willows" or the "Alice" books of Lewis Carroll. Is it better that they read Rowling than not read at all? Will they advance from Rowling to more difficult pleasures? Rowling presents two Englands, mundane and magical, divided not by social classes, but by the distinction between the "perfectly normal" (mean and selfish) and the adherents of sorcery. The sorcerers indeed seem as middle-class as the Muggles, the name the witches and wizards give to the common sort, since those addicted to magic send their sons and daughters off to Hogwarts, a Rugby School where only witchcraft and wizardry are taught. Hogwarts is presided over by Albus Dumbledore as Headmaster, he being Rowling's version of Tolkien's Gandalf. The young future sorcerers are just like any other budding Britons, only more so, sports and food being primary preoccupations. (Sex barely enters into Rowling's cosmos, at least in the first volume.) Harry Potter, now the hero of so many millions of children and adults, is raised by dreadful Muggle relatives after his sorcerer parents are murdered by the wicked Voldemort, a wizard gone trollish and, finally, post-human. Precisely why poor Harry is handed over by the sorcerer elders to his piggish aunt and uncle is never clarified by Rowling, but it is a nice touch, suggesting again how conventional the alternative Britain truly is. They consign their potential hero-wizard to his nasty blood-kin, rather than let him be reared by amiable warlocks and witches, who would know him for one of their own. The child Harry thus suffers the hateful ill treatment of the Dursleys, Muggles of the most Muggleworthy sort, and of their sadistic son, his cousin Dudley. For some early pages we might be in Ken Russell's film of "Tommy," the rock-opera by The Who, except that the prematurely wise Harry is much healthier than Tommy. A born survivor, Harry holds on until the sorcerers rescue him and send him off to Hogwarts, to enter upon the glory of his schooldays. Hogwarts enchants many of Harry's fans, perhaps because it is much livelier than the schools they attend, but it seems to me an academy more tiresome than grotesque. When the future witches and wizards of Great Britain are not studying how to cast a spell, they preoccupy themselves with bizarre intramural sports. It is rather a relief when Harry heroically suffers the ordeal of a confrontation with Voldemort, which the youth handles admirably. One can reasonably doubt that "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is going to prove a classic of children's literature, but Rowling, whatever the aesthetic weakness of her work, is at least a millennial index to our popular culture. So huge an audience gives her importance akin to rock stars, movie idols, TV anchors, and successful politicians. Her prose style, heavy on cliche, makes no demands upon her readers. In an arbitrarily chosen single page -- page 4 -- of the first Harry Potter book, I count seven cliches, all of the "stretch his legs" variety. How to read "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"? Why, very quickly, to begin with, perhaps also to make an end. Why read it? Presumably, if you cannot be persuaded to read anything better, Rowling will have to do. Is there any redeeming educational use to Rowling? Is there any to Stephen King? Why read, if what you read will not enrich mind or spirit or personality? For all I know, the actual wizards and witches of Britain, or of America, may provide an alternative culture for more people than is commonly realized. Perhaps Rowling appeals to millions of reader non-readers because they sense her wistful sincerity, and want to join her world, imaginary or not. She feeds a vast hunger for unreality; can that be bad? At least her fans are momentarily emancipated from their screens, and so may not forget wholly the sensation of turning the pages of a book, any book. Intelligent Children And yet I feel a discomfort with the Harry Potter mania, and I hope that my discontent is not merely a highbrow snobbery, or a nostalgia for a more literate fantasy to beguile (shall we say) intelligent children of all ages. Can more than 35 million book buyers, and their offspring, be wrong? Yes, they have been, and will continue to be so for as long as they persevere with Potter. A vast concourse of inadequate works, for adults and for children, crams the dustbins of the ages. At a time when public judgment is no better and no worse than what is proclaimed by the ideological cheerleaders who have so destroyed humanistic study, anything goes. The cultural critics will, soon enough, introduce Harry Potter into their college curriculum, and The New York Times will go on celebrating another confirmation of the dumbing-down it leads and exemplifies."

12/27/2010 9:41:36 AM

Quote :

"Funk that. Put yourself in his shoes: Your son is dead, and a boy whom--until this point--has been heralded as the best thing to happen to the Wizarding World (HP) is telling everyone that Lord Voldemort killed your son and has returned. And the second-best person in the WW (and who was the former Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot) believes him. What do you do? You go into hiding to protect your wife? Hellz no! You whip out your own wand and smoke voldemort and his whole crew join the Order of the Phoenix. You've got skin in the game!"

12/27/2010 9:57:40 AM

Quote :

"I feel a discomfort with the Harry Potter mania, and I hope that my discontent is not merely a highbrow snobbery"

It is.

12/27/2010 10:35:40 AM

J.K. Rowling could have easily fit him into the Deathly Hallows. It could have been one of the places Harry, Ron, and Hermione went during their journey. It could have been a nice, warm moment between Harry and Amos/wife, where Harry explains exactly what happened in the cemetery the night Cedric died.

And it would have fit much better into the movie, instead of minutes of Harry and Hermione sitting alone in some deserted winter wasteland.

12/27/2010 8:01:16 PM

^the point of them wandering around in the book was to show the misery and try to get the reader to feel as miserable as they were just wandering around in the wilderness. This style just doesn't come off as well in a movie...

12/28/2010 1:34:07 AM

the movie was great. you people are nitpicky

12/28/2010 8:22:44 AM

if anything Harry Potter related ever came out again, it would probably be her manuscripts or different drafts of the story with her notes so readers could see what directions she was thinking about taking the book. I would find that to be very interesting.

12/28/2010 8:28:29 AM

I'm pretty sure she said that she was planning to write more Harry Potter, but in the distant future.

Daniel Radcliff already talked about it and said that he told her that if she writes anymore he won't play Harry Potter again.

12/28/2010 9:45:34 AM

really? what a prick. Harry Potter made his career.

I was always under the impression that she had confirmed never writing anything to do with the series again. If you have a link or anything to the effect that she may write more HP I'd love to check it out.

12/28/2010 10:03:32 AM

No, he wasn't saying it to be a prick. He has said millions of times that he is so happy for Harry Potter and how it has put him where he is today. He has also said that he is ready to move on and go into other projects now. J.K. Rowling understands this as well.

I mean I get it, he started the movies when he was 11, that is really all he is known for. He has been in a few other movies, but not that much.

12/28/2010 10:06:10 AM

I don't blame Radcliffe. Over half of his life has been spent playing HP. I'd be ready for something new too. Of course, if his career tanks he'll probably come crawling back.

12/28/2010 10:07:33 AM

http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/146-daniel-radcliffe-harry-potter-is-like-the-mafia

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2010/10/jk-rowling-more-harry-potter-books-are-possible.html

12/28/2010 10:08:45 AM

hmm this may have been what you were talking about. She was quoted by Time

Quote :

""There have been times since finishing, weak moments, when I've said: 'Yeah, all right' to the eighth novel. If, and it's a big if, I ever write an eighth book about the (wizarding) world, I doubt that Harry would be the central character. I feel I've already told his story. But these are big ifs. Let's give it 10 years.""

I hope she does write another. I guess it would be about Harry as an auror or something. A Harry Potter Jr. series would be retarded though. I think it would be cool to tell Snape or Dumbledore's story, there's got to be some gems in there somewhere.

[Edited on December 28, 2010 at 10:09 AM. Reason : whoops you beat me to it ]

12/28/2010 10:09:13 AM

Quote :

"I hope that my discontent is not merely a highbrow snobbery, or a nostalgia for a more literate fantasy"

lol ... agree with ShinAntonio. the guy spends a thousand words jerking off to "superior fare" and "more difficult pleasures," then he wants us to believe he's not a snob. yeah right

12/28/2010 10:17:11 AM

i know she said she planned to publish a harry potter encyclopedia but i hadn't heard anything about her writing anymore novels about harry. where did you read/hear that?

12/28/2010 10:36:27 AM