Talk:Bellatrix Lestrange/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Fanon Stuff

Should Fanon info. be included? The paragraph about some fans' probably inaccurate speculation about LV and Bella is interesting and everything, but not really NEEDED, yeah? I mean, should information about fanon be included AT ALL in a factual-based database? And it sort of seems like a dig at LV/Bella-shippers. There's no real purpose to it. ...Right?

  • I disagree that Narcissa Malfoy (neé Black) is a Death Eater; she is obviously a sympathiser, because of her husband; however, I personally take the meaning of Death Eater to be one of those in Voldemort's circle, present in the closing chapters of the fourth novel, including (but not limited to)
    • Lucius Malfoy (father to Draco)
    • Antonin Dolohov
    • Bellatrix Lestrange
    • Rudolphus Lestrange
    • ??? Nott (father to Theodore)
    • ??? Avery
  • I believe that there are supposed to be 13 Death Eaters in the original "circle", 3 of whom were dead during the first reunification. Barty Crouch Jr. was not present during that event (he could not leave Hogwarts at the time), Igor Karkaroff was also not present (having fled), and nor was Severus Snape (who could argue that he couldn't leave Hogwarts; acting in his capacity as a double-agent)
  • What's with the picture? Not only is it too small, but I was under the impression that Bellatrix was supposed to be attractive.
Only before Azkaban Noneofyourbusiness 17:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I dont know what you mean, she's dead sexy in that picure.

Merge Lestranges

I suggest moving Rodolphus and Rabastan from the Minor Dark Wizards article to this one, possibly changing the article's name to "The Lestranges" or something like that.

Hello anonymous. But whoever you are, I would second that .They will very sensibly be placed on the same page under Lestrange. And whilke we are at it, there also seems to be a category called Lestrange family, which has only one member. this could also be disposed of and the collective lestrange article then inserted directly into category pure blood families (as the Gaunts are).Sandpiper 01:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Death Eater Dan 02:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Bella is shaping up to be a major player in the series and has more associations with the Black family - is in fact of their blood - than the practically non-existant (in the book) Lestrange clan. I think Bella desrves her own entry and that her husband and brother-in-law belong in the "minor dark wizard" article. (That's what they are: minor, dark!) Plus, people aren't going to be looking up "Lestrange family" they're going to be looking for "Bellatrix Lestrange." It'd be like merging Lucius Malfoy into "Malfoy family." Absurd! Guermantes 19:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guermantes... Emily (Funtrivia Freak) 23:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Oh- so could we get rid of the notice about suggesting they be merged?

Well, as you wish. But there is nothing in the Lestrange article which is not re-told here in more detail, except that it explains RAB was considered as possibly standing for Rodolphus and Bellatrix, which belongs here as much as there. Indeed, that article could equally well be replaced by a redirect to here. Sandpiper 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Family Tree

What is the source for the family tree? You would think there would be a mention in the book of Harry being the cousin(no matter how distant) of Sirius, Neville, and Draco. Is this fanon or is there a basis for this somewhere?

The family tree is canon, written by JK for a charity auction (though she and the purchaser haven't given us the full tree). It does say in the book how all pure-blood families are closely related, the Weasleys should be among the blanked out ones (by book source) too. --Oppolo 00:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
New information on the Black family tree states that Bella was born in 1951: Lexicon Feb 20 update. Should this be included? My only problem with it is that the info came from a word of mouth report, and there is no image to back it up. However, the Lexicon seems to think their source should be trusted. Guermantes 19:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Black family tree states that Bella's daddy was only 13 when she was born. Hummm cue discussions on mommy black's fidelity? I'm only bringing this up becasue I saw a funny fancomic on the issue.--Jademushroom 02:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, thirteen year-olds can often father or bear children. Her mother may have been adult, that way the pregnancy wouldn't have resulted in a disgraceful drop-out from school. Also, JK Rowling isn't a mathematician. Noneofyourbusiness 18:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Followers of Voldemort?

I just altered a line which said the Black family were nearly all followers of Voldemort. Actually, they weren't. If you go though them, while they may have been predominantly dark wizards, more than half look like being opposed to Voldemort. Sirius was OOP. His brother might have started to become a death eater, but repented of it and got killed by Voldemort. Possibly his father got killed with him, and certainly the senior section of the Black family were never open supporters of Voldemort. On Bellatrix's side of the family, her uncle favoured Sirius, one of her sisters became a death eater, but the other married a mudblood. When it came to it, her 'evil' sisters son refused to kill Dumbledore, and indeed Narcissa was much more worried about her family than carrying out Voldemort's orders. So all in all, she herself was the only wholehearted supporter of Voldemort in the whole Black line. Sandpiper 00:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I never thought of it that way, but good analysis. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please keep this article "on topic"

It seems that Harry Potter fans have an inclination to include every little bit of information on a subject that they can dredge up. Encyclopedia articles aren't supposed to do this. Please keep comments relevant to the subheadings under which they appear. Don't include information that is not relevant to the subject of the article.

For example, Andromeda is not an important character in the series – does not even appear in the novels – despite being Bellatrix's sister. People can learn of her (and her relation to Bellatrix) by looking at the Black family tree. If we were to list all her absent blood relations it would be a mess and a waste of time. (Narcissa is mentioned because she is an important character in the series.) Also, there's no need to list who her sisters married. It does not reflect on Bellatrix's blood purity (the heading title) or her character at all. This information does not belong in this article, but in Narcissa's and Andromeda's.

In short, don't make Bellatrix's article ramblings about the Harry Potter universe. This is what many Harry Potter articles have become. Guermantes 16:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. This is not an issue about how to write an HP article, it is about how to write a biography. A biography contains facts about a person. Like she has two sisters, their names, and indeed if they had important connections which affected the subject of the article. That is how I would write any biography about anyone. It seems quite gratuitous not to mention Andromeda by name when her daughter is mentioned. It makes it quite clear which sister is mother of which niece. Otherwise, a casual reader of the old version could well have asssumed that nyphadora is daughter of Narcissa, being the only sibling mentioned.
Why would a casual reader make such an assumption? Their surnames are different and the black family tree clearly shows Bellatrix's relation to unimportant characters like Andromeda. Also, readers learn more about her relations later in the article, at a time whe it is relevant to her character. Guermantes
I think a casual reader would be confused if faced with two nieces having different surnames but only one sibling. It is not our purpose to confuse people. I do not see why a reader should be expected to open a different page to find Bella in the middle of about 40 names on the tree when we can simply explain it precisely with one line of text. Wiki is not paper: the article is not overlong so what is the problem with doing it properly? Sandpiper 19:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
As to her school chums, as I posted above, actually the Black family are not on the whole supporters of Voldemort. Bella did not obviously become one because of family connections, rather because she went to school with children of death eaters. Now, I would not put it like that in the article, because we do not know for certain that this is correct. However it is stated that she went to school with a crowd of people who became involved with death eaters-she met and married one indeed. This is all stuff which would be expected in a biography about someone in any context, how their school years changed their life.
You're quite right to leave all of this speculation out. We know next to nothing about her "school chums," school years, and how she became a Death Eater. We also can't assume that her husband was a Death Eater before their marriage. Guermantes
There is a quote from Sirius, where he talks about Snape mixing with a crowd of Slytherins, including Bella, who all went on to become death eaters. I will include it properly when I have time to sort it out. But the article previously gave the impression she became a death eater because of her family, but actually the Blacks seem to have been either neutral or simply persuing their own agenda. The information we have is that she was mixing with future death eaters at school. Sandpiper 19:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
If you can dredge up this quote, I would be very interested in seeing it. The article, as of now, says that Bellatrix was part of a group of students that includes Snape. This seems off to me, as Bellatrix is 8/9 years older than Snape (and students only attend Hogwarts for 7 years). Sirius, in the same year as Snape, mentions that the most he saw of her was a glimpse as she was taken into Azkaban (no mention of an entire year spent at school together). Guermantes 22:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Goblet of Fire, chapter 27, padfoot returns, 3 pages from the end where Harry et al are talking to Sirius in a cave. Its the famous:
Snape knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in seventh year and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be death eaters.' Sirius held up his fingers, and began ticking off names. 'Rosier and Wilkes-they were both killed by aurors the year before Voldemort fell. The Lestranges - theyr'e a married couple- theyr'e in Azkaban. Avery....
You are quite right that there is a problem with character's ages. This quote and Bella's year of birth just published by JKR indicate that Snape et al. are older than previously thought. Sandpiper 15:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that the title 'Blood purity' did not fit the section well after I had edited it, but it did not fit it well before I touched it, either. So I have now removed it, and the information fits well simply under 'biography'.
I was not questioning the "blood purity" heading. Quite the opposite. The information therein was pertinent to the heading and helps a reader situate her in the wizarding world. (After all, blood purity is very important to Bellatrix.) I don't see how references to the fact that Malfoy and Snape's years at Hogwarts may overlap slightly with Bella's could make the original heading inelegant. If anything, it reveals how absurd it is to be including such information at this point in the article. Also, there is quite obviously no longer a "biography" subcategory, as per your last edit. As you can see, the rest of the article already contains references to these characters and Bella's relationship with them.
I removed 'biog' after I wrote this, and after I read the article again. I do agree that something more about the Black family inclination towards blood purity should go in. Plainly Bella was very much into this, as witness the conversation between her and Harry in the ministry fight, when he sent her into a towering rage by telling her that Voldemort was a half blood. Apparently she was unaware of this. But anyway, she had some choice things to say about Harrys pedigree. Sandpiper 19:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The only thing you've done is stubbornly insert the same information without regard to relevance or concision, therby needlessly lengthening the introduction to the article and scuttling a pertinent subheading. The lack of transitions between the new material and old is glaring. You can see how the sentence about Snape and Malfoy (who are in no way important enough to be included in the introduction to her character) was clearly put right in without regard to how the previously invoked "casual reader" will encounter the article. Guermantes 16:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
When I edit something I imagine it as a two-pass process, the passes being rather different, and iteratively repeated. First, I insert information which I think should be there. It may be, as here, that the existing structure means there is nowhere where new information will easily fit. So I stick it in where it seems least bad. Now next, I rearrange things to flow better. The two stages may be done at the same time, or separately. Sometimes I see an article and just add stuff. Sometimes I see an article and just reorganise. It all takes time, and when I have time I shall improve it. But I regard the added info as an improvement. I also moved stuff to before the spoiler warning. I regard it as important to move as much stuff in front of the spoiler as possible. It should be assumed that a reader wants to read something about the character, otherwise why look here. Only the most sensitive info should be below the warning. Sandpiper 19:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Major timeline gap.

Bellatrix was born in 1951, Snape in 1960. They didn't overlap school, so she wasn't one of his group. There's no canon evidence to support that - it mentions only "The Lestranges," which presumably means Rabastan and Rodolphus. If no one else does, I'll have to edit that because it's not plausible with only 7 years of school and a 9 year age gap. 67.169.111.72 08:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sirius says "the Lestranges - they're a married couple" when referring to the shared school days: seems pretty clear. As for the year of birth for the Marauders et al, I thought that: 1) no one these days believes 1960 as a conceivable birth year; 2) the dates in Harry Potter page came to the conclusion that 1958 made sense, and was capable of agreeing with canon. Michaelsanders 08:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, lets go with 1958 - is it your position that Bellatrix, a 7th year, was in the "gang" of a 1st year? I don't really see how that would work, she'd be 17 and he'd be 11. Dead men's bells 04:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe the obvious implication would be that the gang was made up largely of *her* contemporaries (Malfoy, being younger than her - he was 41 in 1995/96 - was not mentioned as a member), and that *they* took *him* up. As to why they did this, we can only speculate (but if he came to Hogwarts knowing either more dark curses than the seventh years - according to Sirius Black - or new curses - i.e. earlier versions of the HBP curses - it isn't hard to think that he would have been useful). Michaelsanders 15:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Several things - 1) If Bellatrix was born past September of 1951, it's quite conceivable that she was with Snape as a 7th year, if he was born in 1959; 2) The quote states "Snape ... was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be death eaters." Being part of a "gang" of Slytherins doesn't necessarily mean they were literally a gang (which seems unlikely for 1st/7th years, particularly when they are Slytherins), or even in the same years. He might have simply meant that Snape was part of a "bunch" of Slytherins who eventually became Death Eaters. The article should not imply that they definitively went to school together. --fauxcouture<T> 06:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Answers: 1) No. If Bellatrix was born in September-December 1951, the latest Snape can have been born is 31/08/1958 (thus, given his birthday, 9/1/1958). Of course, she could have been born in Jan-Aug 1951, in which case Snape and his generation would have been born in the 1957-58 year. But unless you postulate that Bellatrix was held back a year (and you don't think Sirius would have gloated about that?), Bella and Snape can't have been in school together unless he was born 9/1/1958. 2)It sounds VERY much as though it was a specific gang (after all, Malfoy wasn't on the list, and Sirius has no illusions about him, and knows that Snape an Malfoy go back for years). If Sirius was simply saying that Snape was part of a 'bunch' of Slytherins who turned out to be death eaters, you don't think Malfoy - or, for that matter, Regulus - would be on the list? In any case, I'm not at all sure that in British English, a 'gang' can be used in the way you suggest. Given what we do know about Snape, we know that he went off to school 'knowing more hexes than half the school', or something along those lines. In fact, he knew different and inventive hexes. You don't think that would have made him attractive to Bellatrix's coterie of seventh (and possibly sixth) years? And then after se and her gang left, he would have been picked up by Malfoy, but that doesn't stick in Sirius' mind so much as does Snape being patronised by Sirius' hated cousin Bella. Michaelsanders 10:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right, of course, on the first point; I always forget there are semesters that don't overlap in the same year! As for Sirius's list - I think it is very convincing that they were at school together, and there is much to be said for an argument that Snape and Bellatrix associated, but I wonder that Bellatrix wouldn't have known about his lineage? Snape wouldn't have been a pureblood name, and given her hatred of impure-bloods, it seems possible they wouldn't have associated, regardless of his knowledge of hexes. This is all speculation, obviously, but I think that both possibilities are worth mentioning, given that (from a literary aesthetic) it would have been tedious for everyone to have been mentioned. Rabastan isn't mentioned, for example, but he -must- have gone to school with Snape, or he wouldn't have been old enough to have been arrested in 1981 (as far as my dodgy math indicates). That is, of course, assuming Rabastan is the younger brother (which I personally don't, but most people seem to). I think it's ambiguous enough that it shouldn't be stated as definitive for Bellatrix to have gone to school with Snape. --fauxcouture<T> 21:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The surname is a bit of a problem, I agree. Mind you, no one else appears to have twigged that Snape's a half-blood. And not all purebloods are as elite as the Blacks, or notorious as the Weasley's: so she might have simply assumed that he was from a very low-class pureblood family, and thus 'not our kind of people'. Or, given that Rowling says that pureblood status can be gained over time (but not for the most elite), she might have assumed that he was a fifth-generation (for example) descendant of a half-blood or muggle-born named Snape - thus, not the sort of person a Black would consider marrying, but acceptable to use. Or, given that they probably weren't best mates, she might have set aside his dubious purity so that she could make use of him (though, given her fanaticism, I'd find that unlikely). Or, she might have thought as the general readership, myself included, thought - Slytherin is 'the house of the pureblood', they all seem to be DEs in training: what sort of lineage is the kid likely to have (frankly, I can't stand Rowlings superficial portrayal of Slytherin House. It does actually seem to be deeper than 'they're all evil Voldemort supporters', but the impression she gives in the books is that a quarter of the school children are irredeemably evil. Oh well, rant over). In any case, we don't know enough of the events, or of Bellatrix's nature (certainly pre-Azkaban), to judge under what circumstances she would have accepted Snape. As for Sirius' recital - given how much Sirius hates Bellatrix, I suspect that her gang of friends would have made more of an impact upon him than Malfoy and *his* gang. And it is more likely that Sirius is describing people he actually saw Snape with, rather than a general trend of Slytherins who went bad. As for the non-mention of Rabastan: that is if anything more supportive of the idea that 'the gang of slytherins' was a specific group on the order of Harry and friends, rather than a vague trend of evil Slytherins. After all, Rabastan and Rodolphus thus far have been inseparable in canon, such is their shared minor role. The fact that Rabastan was not included, despite his shared culpability with Rodolphus in everything, would seem to suggest that it was a specific year group of seventh years, in which younger kids, or younger brothers, were conspicuously 'not allowed' (much like Fred and George with Ron and Ginny), but which took Snape as a mascot. Indeed, it would be very valuable to think of another gang of Slytherins. The Slytherin Quidditch team. Consider the description of the small Malfoy, flanked by the massive bulky Slytherins. In both cases, it is a person who is not a natural member (Snape being younger and lowerclass, Malfoy being small and useless at Quidditch), but who is useful to them (Snape's hexes, Malfoy's money). But really, I think that in the books, it is made clear that Snape and Bellatrix were in the same year. It is only when we actually consider it, that flaws are found and explanations are necessary. Michaelsanders 22:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Similarities with a real person.

Does anyone else think we should mention that in her devotion to Voldemort, Bellatrix resembles Unity Valkyrie Mitford?

No, it would be speculation on our part. However, if this parralel has been drawn by reputable media it could be introduced into a new section discussing Bellatrix's role in the series. 68.162.161.51

Bellatrix...calm?

I found the reference to Bellatrix having 'an intelligent, calm conversation' with Snape laughable! I quote: "'Then you ought to hold your tongue!' Bellatrix snarled" "'Why is it that you do not trust me?' 'A hundred reasons!' she said loudly, striding out from behind the sofa to slam her glass upon the table...she paused, her chest rising and falling rapidly, the colour high in her cheeks." "'He'd have me!' said Bellatrix passionately... 'Gesture!' she shrieked; in her fury she looked slightly mad." I'm sorry: how does Dead men's bells define 'calm'? To say she is actually insane in these scenes would be a subjective judgement, but to call that performance 'calm' requires one to be several miles over the border between sanity and madness and rapidly accelerating. Michaelsanders 23:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur, she is clearly not calm, although her questions are both logical and pointed. Guermantes 22:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not disputing that: whilst she is clearly not in control of the situation (she was surprised by the Vow, inadvertently let Snape know that she was no longer favoured by Voldemort, and at one point was stemmed from a rant about 'his most precious' and what Lucius had done), she is behaving intelligently, and far more maturely than the 'baby Potter' taunts a month or so before that. It was the reference to her being 'calm' which I found questionable: as a descriptor of her behaviour there, it was so far from what actually happened, that it made me wonder whether the editor in question had read the book in recent months. Michaelsanders 23:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


I've read it quite recently, thank you. It's a matter ofninterpretation - she certainly did have angry moments, but during the actual interrogation prior to Snape's snarky retorts, she asked pointed questions and replied relatively calmly. I don't dispute that she got upset, but most of the conversation was cold with anger brimming beneath the surface. As you may have noticed, I didn't add "calm" back in after it was removed. I'm just as happy with intelligent, logical, rational, etc. The idea is that she isn't so impassioned as to prevent coherent thought or preclude critical thinking. The entire DoM scene is driven by bloodlust and anger and emotion; this scene is largely an argument with palpable tension that does bubble up when Snape offends her grievously enough, but it's definitely much calmer, IMHO. If you have a problem with my edit, that's fine - I didn't get into an edit war and change it back - but I'd really rather you did it without questioning MY sanity. It's not exactly a friendly or polite approach to solving an edit problem. Dead men's bells 09:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ted Tonks

Is Ted Tonks a muggle, or a muggle-born wizard? Michaelsanders 17:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If Ted Tonks was a muggle, JKRowling would write (OotP): "My father, who's a muggle, he is incredibly..." however she wrote: "My father, who's muggle-born, he is incredibly..." Also in [1],it makes it clear that Tonks father is a muggle-born person and not a muggle.--Hermione 23:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Name

Is her name pronounced bell-A-tricks or bell-A-tree? Therequiembellishere 23:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

'BELL-a-tricks' I think.
[2] - Rowling's pronunciation guide --fauxcouture<T> 01:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/l/Talk%7EBellatrix_Lestrange_archive1_c216.html"