The name death eaters

[d***@gmail.com]

Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

[Yellow]

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

Does the canon fire rockets?

[Phil]

Post by Yellow

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

Does the canon fire rockets?

Feeble attempt at humour TBH

[Yellow]

Post by Phil

Post by Yellow

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

Does the canon fire rockets?

Feeble attempt at humour TBH

Sorry, it's just I've never actually heard the word "canon" used in
normal life outside of this newsgroups and instead we just call them
"the books".

Not saying it isn't a right word, just that it's well, a bit Poncy. :-)

[Thom Madura]

Post by Yellow

Post by Phil

Post by Yellow

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

Does the canon fire rockets?

Feeble attempt at humour TBH

Sorry, it's just I've never actually heard the word "canon" used in
normal life outside of this newsgroups and instead we just call them
"the books".
Not saying it isn't a right word, just that it's well, a bit Poncy. :-)

Poncy?

[Yellow]

Post by Thom Madura

Post by Yellow

Post by Phil

Post by Yellow

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

Does the canon fire rockets?

Feeble attempt at humour TBH

Sorry, it's just I've never actually heard the word "canon" used in
normal life outside of this newsgroups and instead we just call them
"the books".
Not saying it isn't a right word, just that it's well, a bit Poncy. :-)

Poncy?

Yep, poncy (dunno though where the capital letter came from!).

It's slang for pretentious.

[Lyle Francis Delp]

Post by Yellow

Post by Phil

Post by Yellow

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

Does the canon fire rockets?

Feeble attempt at humour TBH

Sorry, it's just I've never actually heard the word "canon" used in
normal life outside of this newsgroups and instead we just call them
"the books".
Not saying it isn't a right word, just that it's well, a bit Poncy. :-)

Not even the Taco Bell Canon?

[Steve Morrison]

Post by Yellow

Post by Phil

Post by Yellow

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

Does the canon fire rockets?

Feeble attempt at humour TBH

Sorry, it's just I've never actually heard the word "canon" used in
normal life outside of this newsgroups and instead we just call them
"the books".
Not saying it isn't a right word, just that it's well, a bit Poncy. :-)

Well, it started out as a joke. Originally it was used by Sherlock
Holmes fans to refer to their Sacred Writings, and the custom was
eventually picked up by other fandoms. The original reason was that
a priest named Ronald Knox wrote an essay, "Studies in the Literature
of Sherlock Holmes", in which he satirized some types of Biblical
scholarship by pretending to apply them to Doyle's writings. (He
sometimes "deduced" that certain stories were really inauthentic
fabrications on the grounds that they created plot inconsistencies!)

http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/books/knox_essays_in_satire/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes_speculation

[Richard Eney]

Post by Steve Morrison

Post by Yellow

Post by Phil

Post by Yellow

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out
why they're called "death eaters?"

Does the canon fire rockets?

Feeble attempt at humour TBH

Sorry, it's just I've never actually heard the word "canon" used in
normal life outside of this newsgroups and instead we just call them
"the books".
Not saying it isn't a right word, just that it's well, a bit Poncy. :-)

Well, it started out as a joke. Originally it was used by Sherlock
Holmes fans to refer to their Sacred Writings, and the custom was
eventually picked up by other fandoms. The original reason was that
a priest named Ronald Knox wrote an essay, "Studies in the Literature
of Sherlock Holmes", in which he satirized some types of Biblical
scholarship by pretending to apply them to Doyle's writings. (He
sometimes "deduced" that certain stories were really inauthentic
fabrications on the grounds that they created plot inconsistencies!)
http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/books/knox_essays_in_satire/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes_speculation

...

It's a useful term when you're discussing multiple sources and
some people disagree about which ones matter the most. If JKR had
never given any interviews and there had been no movies, we'd only
have to decide whether to include the charity books and the various
corrections where the editors missed some of JKR's errors and also
created some of their own.
Some of the explanations we've come up with here are good ideas
in their own right. The Holmes fans have had a great time coming
up with explanations (e.g., for Dr. Watson's multiple wives, and
the change of address in one story), and learning to think about
story that way has led more than one person to becoming a writer
themselves.

=Tamar

[Toon]

Post by Richard Eney
It's a useful term when you're discussing multiple sources and
some people disagree about which ones matter the most. If JKR had
never given any interviews and there had been no movies, we'd only
have to decide whether to include the charity books and the various
corrections where the editors missed some of JKR's errors and also
created some of their own.

I take it simply. Original work is canon (corrections for errors take
over, IE, James and Lily's echo order). Anythign extra by the author
or approved official representation thereof that does not contradict
the original source is canon. The books are original source (with
corrections), the Charity books are extra and do not contradict the
books, and thus are canon, as they expand the universe with more
detail. Any interview/web site info that does not contradict becomes
canon as it expands with detail. Any interview comment that goes
against the books (especially deliberately) cannot be canon. Any
interview comment that can be retied into the books, becomes canon
when taken with the tie in. The movies contradict the books, and thus
can never be canon. Some scenes that do not contradict the book, and
are just plain cool, like the musical bogart battling in movie POA,
are canon, because it's too cool not to be (OK, so this one is highly
debatable, and the books don't say there were music, so, is that
necessarily a contradiction?)

Others chose only original source, but then, why not accept the
charity books, as they add to and enhance? Are they lies then?
Mistakes? Shoulda beens?

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

Rowling is a fan of puns and other plays on words-- diagonally and
Diagon Alley, the mirror of Erised (a reflection of desire).

Death eater is probably the Slytherin pun on a slithering death adder.

[Thom Madura]

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

No - we have no backfill for that yet.

[2***@wongfaye.com]

Post by Thom Madura

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

No - we have no backfill for that yet.

i think voldemort started a band called deaf heaters and someone made
a typo and it stuck

[Alexandra]

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

I always thought that, with them being Voldemort's groupies and
everything:

(1) they kind of "feed" on death, despair, fear and terrorism;

(2) "death eater" might also mean someone who defeats death, which
was, of course, Voldemorts ultimate goal.

The name probably came from either Voldemort (which might lead to n.
2) or the general population which started calling them that out of
fear (which brings us to meaning 1) as they named Voldemort You-Know-
Whom, Harry The Bow Who Lived and so on...

[Green-Eyed Chris]

In article

Post by Alexandra

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

I always thought that, with them being Voldemort's groupies and
(1) they kind of "feed" on death, despair, fear and terrorism;
(2) "death eater" might also mean someone who defeats death, which
was, of course, Voldemorts ultimate goal.
The name probably came from either Voldemort (which might lead to n.
2) or the general population which started calling them that out of
fear (which brings us to meaning 1) as they named Voldemort You-Know-
Whom, Harry The Bow Who Lived and so on...

...

That's the way I understood it. I initially went with #1, until we
learned about Dementors, and then switched to #2 due to Voldemort's
desire to conquer death. He should have teamed up with Dumbledore and
his Deathly Hallows.
--
Chris

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Green-Eyed Chris
In article

Post by Alexandra

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

I always thought that, with them being Voldemort's groupies and
(1) they kind of "feed" on death, despair, fear and terrorism;
(2) "death eater" might also mean someone who defeats death, which
was, of course, Voldemorts ultimate goal.
The name probably came from either Voldemort (which might lead to n.
2) or the general population which started calling them that out of
fear (which brings us to meaning 1) as they named Voldemort You-Know-
Whom, Harry The Bow Who Lived and so on...

That's the way I understood it. I initially went with #1, until we
learned about Dementors, and then switched to #2 due to Voldemort's
desire to conquer death. He should have teamed up with Dumbledore and
his Deathly Hallows.
--
Chris- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

...

Dumbledore definitely wanted to conquer death but not slaughtering
others to get this. He knew about the Horcrux of course. But he didn't
try it. Voldemort could not have teamed up with Dumbledore, firstly
because Voldemort didn't know at all about the Hallows. And if he knew
I doubt he would try to get those. Because Horcrux definitely was more
appealing to him as it was easy to create (in his way obviously).

Talking about Death Eaters , that name probably came from the idea of
conquering death, meaning in other way eating death as it is the idea
of Tom at school. Tom named them possibly. I doubt the DEs knew what
Tom meant by eating death. But they were pretty happy getting a scary
title as that.

[Drusilla]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Green-Eyed Chris
In article

Post by Alexandra

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

I always thought that, with them being Voldemort's groupies and
(1) they kind of "feed" on death, despair, fear and terrorism;
(2) "death eater" might also mean someone who defeats death, which
was, of course, Voldemorts ultimate goal.
The name probably came from either Voldemort (which might lead to n.
2) or the general population which started calling them that out of
fear (which brings us to meaning 1) as they named Voldemort You-Know-
Whom, Harry The Bow Who Lived and so on...

That's the way I understood it. I initially went with #1, until we
learned about Dementors, and then switched to #2 due to Voldemort's
desire to conquer death. He should have teamed up with Dumbledore and
his Deathly Hallows.
--
Chris- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Dumbledore definitely wanted to conquer death but not slaughtering
others to get this.

...

Are you sure? What about muggles? The young DD wouldn't have minded to
get ride of them if they got in the way.

He knew about the Horcrux of course. But he didn't

Post by r***@gmail.com
try it. Voldemort could not have teamed up with Dumbledore, firstly
because Voldemort didn't know at all about the Hallows. And if he knew
I doubt he would try to get those. Because Horcrux definitely was more
appealing to him as it was easy to create (in his way obviously).

LV feared death, that was his main motivation. DD, as fas as I can see,
didn't. He wanted the power and to get the weapons that would make him
powerful. A Horcrux will keep you "alive" but it won't give you extra
powers as the Wand, the Cloak and the Ring were supposed to. And even
after getting the Hallows, Voldemort had wanted to create Horcruxes
anyway.

Post by r***@gmail.com
Talking about Death Eaters , that name probably came from the idea of
conquering death, meaning in other way eating death as it is the idea
of Tom at school. Tom named them possibly. I doubt the DEs knew what
Tom meant by eating death. But they were pretty happy getting a scary
title as that.

My son and his dad used to play Warcraft. Part of the Living Death were
some creepy little things that would eat the bodies of those who had
died. That's the image I had for many times of something or someone who
would "eat death" and even in pixels, it was quite disturbing.

[Toon]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:27:23 -0500, Drusilla

Post by Drusilla
Are you sure? What about muggles? The young DD wouldn't have minded to
get ride of them if they got in the way.

Did he want them dead, or dominated? I thought that was the main
difference between him and Grindewald. DD didn't want them dead, just
subjugated.

[DaveD]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Green-Eyed Chris
In article

Post by Alexandra

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

I always thought that, with them being Voldemort's groupies and
(1) they kind of "feed" on death, despair, fear and terrorism;
(2) "death eater" might also mean someone who defeats death, which
was, of course, Voldemorts ultimate goal.
The name probably came from either Voldemort (which might lead to n.
2) or the general population which started calling them that out of
fear (which brings us to meaning 1) as they named Voldemort You-Know-
Whom, Harry The Bow Who Lived and so on...

That's the way I understood it. I initially went with #1, until we
learned about Dementors, and then switched to #2 due to Voldemort's
desire to conquer death. He should have teamed up with Dumbledore and
his Deathly Hallows.
--
Chris- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Dumbledore definitely wanted to conquer death but not slaughtering
others to get this.

Are you sure? What about muggles? The young DD wouldn't have minded to get
ride of them if they got in the way.

...

Well, I suspect the young Dd would have minded, ie he would be upset if they
had to be killed, and he would probably have tried to avoid it, but I agree
he probably would have got rid of them if they'd been an obstacle to
achieving his vision of "the greater good". After all, he was prepared -
reluctantly - to help Harry die in order to defeat Voldy.

He knew about the Horcrux of course. But he didn't

Post by r***@gmail.com
try it. Voldemort could not have teamed up with Dumbledore, firstly
because Voldemort didn't know at all about the Hallows. And if he knew
I doubt he would try to get those. Because Horcrux definitely was more
appealing to him as it was easy to create (in his way obviously).

LV feared death, that was his main motivation. DD, as fas as I can see,
didn't. He wanted the power and to get the weapons that would make him
powerful. A Horcrux will keep you "alive" but it won't give you extra
powers as the Wand, the Cloak and the Ring were supposed to. And even
after getting the Hallows, Voldemort had wanted to create Horcruxes
anyway.

...

It's probably worth contextualising that second sentence and looking at why
Dd wanted power: I don't think it was for its own sake; he wasn't a
(simplistic) megalomaniac who just got a kick out of bullying or abusing
people as Voldy did, or even as some way of compensating for perceived
inadequacies in himself, as Snape did.

Instead, I think Dd wanted power so he could achieve his goal, which was
ultimately "the greater good" (again), ie he wanted power to do good, even
if at the time he didn't realise - or ignored the fact - that he would
probably be committing more evil along the way, outweighing all the good he
might achieve.

DaveD

[Drusilla]

Post by DaveD

Post by Drusilla

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Green-Eyed Chris
In article

Post by Alexandra

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

I always thought that, with them being Voldemort's groupies and
(1) they kind of "feed" on death, despair, fear and terrorism;
(2) "death eater" might also mean someone who defeats death, which
was, of course, Voldemorts ultimate goal.
The name probably came from either Voldemort (which might lead to n.
2) or the general population which started calling them that out of
fear (which brings us to meaning 1) as they named Voldemort You-Know-
Whom, Harry The Bow Who Lived and so on...

That's the way I understood it. I initially went with #1, until we
learned about Dementors, and then switched to #2 due to Voldemort's
desire to conquer death. He should have teamed up with Dumbledore and
his Deathly Hallows.
--
Chris- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Dumbledore definitely wanted to conquer death but not slaughtering
others to get this.

Are you sure? What about muggles? The young DD wouldn't have minded to
get ride of them if they got in the way.

Well, I suspect the young Dd would have minded, ie he would be upset if
they had to be killed, and he would probably have tried to avoid it, but
I agree he probably would have got rid of them if they'd been an
obstacle to achieving his vision of "the greater good". After all, he
was prepared - reluctantly - to help Harry die in order to defeat Voldy.

Post by Drusilla
He knew about the Horcrux of course. But he didn't

Post by r***@gmail.com
try it. Voldemort could not have teamed up with Dumbledore, firstly
because Voldemort didn't know at all about the Hallows. And if he knew
I doubt he would try to get those. Because Horcrux definitely was more
appealing to him as it was easy to create (in his way obviously).

LV feared death, that was his main motivation. DD, as fas as I can
see, didn't. He wanted the power and to get the weapons that would
make him powerful. A Horcrux will keep you "alive" but it won't give
you extra powers as the Wand, the Cloak and the Ring were supposed to.
And even after getting the Hallows, Voldemort had wanted to create
Horcruxes anyway.

It's probably worth contextualising that second sentence and looking at
why Dd wanted power: I don't think it was for its own sake; he wasn't a
(simplistic) megalomaniac who just got a kick out of bullying or abusing
people as Voldy did, or even as some way of compensating for perceived
inadequacies in himself, as Snape did.
Instead, I think Dd wanted power so he could achieve his goal, which was
ultimately "the greater good" (again), ie he wanted power to do good,
even if at the time he didn't realise - or ignored the fact - that he
would probably be committing more evil along the way, outweighing all
the good he might achieve.

...

I agree with what you said, and yes, the sad thing is that power
corrupts. And if DD and GG had achieved their goals, they could have
ended up as tyrants or dictators, pretty much like Voldemort. And the
worst part is that their "justification" wasn't a personal achievement
but something that would "benefit" the wizard world. Still, it wasn't
his own benefit what he was looking for, unless we could call that the
fact that he would be something like a leader or a 'Saviour'.

OTOH, looks like he wasn't aware of what Horcruxes were in those days.
What if they had known of their existence? Grindewald wouldn't have much
problem about trying to make one and Dumbledore had been tempted.

[Lady of the Rings]

Post by r***@gmail.com
He knew about the Horcrux of course. But he didn't

Post by r***@gmail.com
try it. Voldemort could not have teamed up with Dumbledore, firstly
because Voldemort didn't know at all about the Hallows. And if he knew
I doubt he would try to get those. Because Horcrux definitely was more
appealing to him as it was easy to create (in his way obviously).

LV feared death, that was his main motivation. DD, as fas as I can see,
didn't. He wanted the power and to get the weapons that would make him
powerful. A Horcrux will keep you "alive" but it won't give you extra
powers as the Wand, the Cloak and the Ring were supposed to. And even
after getting the Hallows, Voldemort had wanted to create Horcruxes
anyway.

...

Sorry, but AFAIK, Voldemort never had all of the hallows. He owned and
horcuxed the ring, fine,. but never in his life he put his hand on the
cloak. And he took, but never owned as he did not conquer it, the wand.
Moreover, all of the horcruxes have been created before he got a grip on two
out of three of the hallows, and by then the ring had already been
slashed....

[Toon]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:54:35 GMT, "DaveD"

Post by DaveD
It's probably worth contextualising that second sentence and looking at why
Dd wanted power: I don't think it was for its own sake; he wasn't a
(simplistic) megalomaniac who just got a kick out of bullying or abusing
people as Voldy did, or even as some way of compensating for perceived
inadequacies in himself, as Snape did.
Instead, I think Dd wanted power so he could achieve his goal, which was
ultimately "the greater good" (again), ie he wanted power to do good, even
if at the time he didn't realise - or ignored the fact - that he would
probably be committing more evil along the way, outweighing all the good he
might achieve.

...

He wanted to make the world a better place. To him, that meant
Wizards must rule, not Muggles. And if a few muggles get in the way,
so sorry, but their choice. Their sacrifice helps the greater good.
DD just believed that the ends justify the means

Everybody thinks the guy trying to take over the world is evil, and
will be a horrible dictator. But what if he were to be a good and
benevolent ruler? Would it truly be so wrong if he took that power
rather than earned it? Well, depends on how he took it. if nobody
died, would it even be an issue? The world's a better place,
everybody's happy. Does it really matter if some guy just forced
peace on everybody? And if he does make it a better place, would not
those he killed to get there merely been against the good? Is it not
better that these resistors perish, rather than have ruined the
perfect world? What is a fair price for peace? How many deaths until
it's a pyrical victory for the world?

Grindewald sought power to hurt. DD sought power to help. Is DD
truly that bad then? Just because he and Grindewald shared the same
dominating plans at first?

[DaveD]

Post by Toon
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:54:35 GMT, "DaveD"

Post by DaveD
It's probably worth contextualising that second sentence and looking at why
Dd wanted power: I don't think it was for its own sake; he wasn't a
(simplistic) megalomaniac who just got a kick out of bullying or abusing
people as Voldy did, or even as some way of compensating for perceived
inadequacies in himself, as Snape did.
Instead, I think Dd wanted power so he could achieve his goal, which was
ultimately "the greater good" (again), ie he wanted power to do good, even
if at the time he didn't realise - or ignored the fact - that he would
probably be committing more evil along the way, outweighing all the good he
might achieve.

He wanted to make the world a better place. To him, that meant
Wizards must rule, not Muggles. And if a few muggles get in the way,
so sorry, but their choice. Their sacrifice helps the greater good.
DD just believed that the ends justify the means
Everybody thinks the guy trying to take over the world is evil, and
will be a horrible dictator. But what if he were to be a good and
benevolent ruler? Would it truly be so wrong if he took that power
rather than earned it? Well, depends on how he took it. if nobody
died, would it even be an issue? The world's a better place,
everybody's happy. Does it really matter if some guy just forced
peace on everybody? And if he does make it a better place, would not
those he killed to get there merely been against the good? Is it not
better that these resistors perish, rather than have ruined the
perfect world? What is a fair price for peace? How many deaths until
it's a pyrical victory for the world?

...

Ah, the old "benevolent dictator" concept. Sometimes touted as the best form
of government - as long as you're on the right side of the benevolence!

Post by Toon
Grindewald sought power to hurt. DD sought power to help. Is DD
truly that bad then? Just because he and Grindewald shared the same
dominating plans at first?

There's a definite qualitative difference between Gw and Dd in that regard,
and similarly with Voldy. We don't know much about Gw except he was a "bad
guy" but I like to think Dd genuinely did want the greater good. It just
took him a while to realise that you can't achieve it if it's built it on a
foundation of repression. Then it's just another form of evil, regardless of
the good intentions behind it.

But it's those good intentions that distinguish Dd from Voldy and Gw. It's
not power for its own sake so you can use, abuse, and enjoy it, it's power
to be used for a more altruistic end.

DaveD

[Toon]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:17:46 -0800 (PST), Alexandra

Post by Alexandra

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

I always thought that, with them being Voldemort's groupies and
(1) they kind of "feed" on death, despair, fear and terrorism;
(2) "death eater" might also mean someone who defeats death, which
was, of course, Voldemorts ultimate goal.
The name probably came from either Voldemort (which might lead to n.
2) or the general population which started calling them that out of
fear (which brings us to meaning 1) as they named Voldemort You-Know-
Whom, Harry The Bow Who Lived and so on...

...

I think it was to inspire fear, not truth in labeling.

[Toon]

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

Far scarier that Death Cowards. If they eat Death, they just be
powerful. Ooh scary. If they just fear death, meh.

[BubblyBabs]

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

I always hated that term... Sounds stupid to me... I thought I read
somewhere that JKR initially thought to call them Knights of Death but don't
know how true that is... That sounds more majestic to me but I guess they
aren't supposed to be majestic, are they?

Babs

[Drusilla]

Post by BubblyBabs

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

I always hated that term... Sounds stupid to me... I thought I read
somewhere that JKR initially thought to call them Knights of Death but don't
know how true that is... That sounds more majestic to me but I guess they
aren't supposed to be majestic, are they?

I actually liked the Spanish version better because it wasn't actually
in Spanish but sounded like a "scientific name": Mortífagos. I was
disappointed to hear that the real name was so literal.

[Jano]

Post by Drusilla

Post by BubblyBabs

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

I always hated that term... Sounds stupid to me... I thought I read
somewhere that JKR initially thought to call them Knights of Death but don't
know how true that is... That sounds more majestic to me but I guess
they aren't supposed to be majestic, are they?

I actually liked the Spanish version better because it wasn't actually
in Spanish but sounded like a "scientific name": Mortífagos. I was
disappointed to hear that the real name was so literal.

...

I too think they nailed it for the spanish version. But, then, they had real
pressure: "comemuerte" or "comedores de muerte" is really too silly to
bear.

[Alexandra]

Post by Jano

Post by Drusilla

Post by BubblyBabs

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

I always hated that term... Sounds stupid to me... I thought I read
somewhere that JKR initially thought to call them Knights of Death but don't
know how true that is... That sounds more majestic to me but I guess
they aren't supposed to be majestic, are they?

I actually liked the Spanish version better because it wasn't actually
in Spanish but sounded like a "scientific name": Mortífagos. I was
disappointed to hear that the real name was so literal.

I too think they nailed it for the spanish version. But, then, they had real
pressure: "comemuerte" or "comedores de muerte" is really too silly to
bear.

...

They called them "Mangiamorte" in Italian, which is just like
"comemuerte", only it sounds better while still sticking with the
original (and it's got the double bonus of the twin initial which is a
Rowling big time favourite).
I really like "Mortifagos", too, though, and I'm happy the Spanish
translator thought hard about that one; unfortunately "Mortifagi"
wouldn't have sounded as cool in Italian: I don't know about you, but
we do still use words with "-fago, -fagi" as an ending to mean
"eater", so it would have just sounded a little scholarly; plus the
"i" plural sounds a lot worse than the "os".

[Louis Epstein]

Alexandra <***@yahoo.it> wrote:
: On 7 Gen, 18:54, Jano <***@mailinator.com> wrote:
:> Drusilla wrote:
:> > BubblyBabs escribi?:
:> >> <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
:> >>news:94980862-dbd1-4b43-a624-***@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
:> >>> Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
:> >>> called "death eaters?"
:>
:> >> I always hated that term... Sounds stupid to me... I thought I read
:> >> somewhere that JKR initially thought to call them Knights of Death but
:> >> don't
:> >> know how true that is... That sounds more majestic to me but I guess
:> >> they aren't supposed to be majestic, are they?
:>
:> > I actually liked the Spanish version better because it wasn't actually
:> > in Spanish but sounded like a "scientific name": Mort?fagos. I was
:> > disappointed to hear that the real name was so literal.
:>
:> I too think they nailed it for the spanish version. But, then, they had real
:> pressure: "comemuerte" or "comedores de muerte" is really too silly to
:> bear.
:
:
:
: They called them "Mangiamorte" in Italian, which is just like
: "comemuerte", only it sounds better while still sticking with the
: original (and it's got the double bonus of the twin initial which is a
: Rowling big time favourite).
: I really like "Mortifagos", too, though, and I'm happy the Spanish
: translator thought hard about that one; unfortunately "Mortifagi"
: wouldn't have sounded as cool in Italian: I don't know about you, but
: we do still use words with "-fago, -fagi" as an ending to mean
: "eater", so it would have just sounded a little scholarly; plus the
: "i" plural sounds a lot worse than the "os".
:

STONE,at least,has been translated into Latin and Classical Greek;
what was used in those versions?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Louis Epstein]

BubblyBabs <***@whatever.com> wrote:
: <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
: news:94980862-dbd1-4b43-a624-***@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
:> Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
:> called "death eaters?"
:
: I always hated that term... Sounds stupid to me... I thought I read
: somewhere that JKR initially thought to call them Knights of Death but don't
: know how true that is... That sounds more majestic to me but I guess they
: aren't supposed to be majestic, are they?
:
: Babs

"Knights of Walpurgis",I think...I agree the name "Death Eaters" sounds
silly!

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[John VanSickle]

Post by Louis Epstein
:> Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
:> called "death eaters?"
: I always hated that term... Sounds stupid to me... I thought I read
: somewhere that JKR initially thought to call them Knights of Death but don't
: know how true that is... That sounds more majestic to me but I guess they
: aren't supposed to be majestic, are they?
: Babs
"Knights of Walpurgis",I think...I agree the name "Death Eaters" sounds
silly!

Calling anything that doesn't have even an old, abandoned tradition of
wearing armor, let alone the habit of wearing it now, by the name of
"Knights" of anything, is rather silly.

"If you're the Knights of Walpurgis, where's your armor?"

"Armor? We don't need no stinking armor!"

Right, then. Who can think of a cooler name for V's organization than
JKR did? I think Order of the Serpent works better.

Regards,
John

[Toon]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 02:18:10 -0400, John VanSickle

Post by John VanSickle

Post by Louis Epstein
:> Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
:> called "death eaters?"
: I always hated that term... Sounds stupid to me... I thought I read
: somewhere that JKR initially thought to call them Knights of Death but don't
: know how true that is... That sounds more majestic to me but I guess they
: aren't supposed to be majestic, are they?
: Babs
"Knights of Walpurgis",I think...I agree the name "Death Eaters" sounds
silly!

Calling anything that doesn't have even an old, abandoned tradition of
wearing armor, let alone the habit of wearing it now, by the name of
"Knights" of anything, is rather silly.
"If you're the Knights of Walpurgis, where's your armor?"
"Armor? We don't need no stinking armor!"
Right, then. Who can think of a cooler name for V's organization than
JKR did? I think Order of the Serpent works better.
Regards,
John

...

Death Masters? Legion Of Gloom (for the Dementors) V Squad? Bush
Administration?

[Here in Minnesota!]

Post by BubblyBabs

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

I always hated that term... Sounds stupid to me... I thought I read
somewhere that JKR initially thought to call them Knights of Death but
don't know how true that is... That sounds more majestic to me but I
guess they aren't supposed to be majestic, are they?
Babs

The DE are more or less wizards KKK. Many KKK refers to themselves as
"Knights".

[RFV]

Post by d***@gmail.com
Now that the canon is complete, did we ever find out why they're
called "death eaters?"

It's a play on beefeaters, they are like V's guard.

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by RFV
It's a play on beefeaters, they are like V's guard.

Yeoman warder works for me!