+10 Severus Snape +9 Sirius Black +8 Rubeus Hagrid +7 Ron Weasley +6 Draco Malfoy +5 Albus Dumbledore +4 Fred Weasley +3 Voldemort +2 Harry Potter +1 Hermione Granger
--
Will not remove this line of my signature until the Seahawks, Jazz or Rockies win a title (Started 5-16-09) Yes, I know I'm never getting rid of this signature
+10 Albus Dumbledore +9 Sirius Black +8 Severus Snape +7 Harry Potter +6 Voldemort +5 Hermione Granger +4 Rubeus Hagrid +3 Ron Weasley +2 Fred Weasley +1 Draco Malfoy
My actual favorite would be 01. Albus Dumbledore 02. Sirius Black 03. Severus Snape 04. Harry Potter 05. Voldemort 06. Hermione Granger 07. Dobby 08. Bellatrix Lestrange 09. Remus Lupin 10. Rubeus Hagrid
Wow, really? Sirius Black is mentioned more than Draco Malfoy? More than McGonnigal? He's only important in like...three books.
+10 Snape +9 Dumbledore +8 Hermione +7 Fred +6 Hagrid +5 Harry +4 Draco +3 Ron +2 Sirius +1 Voldemort
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
+10 Sirius Black (he could be anywhere!) +9 Snape +8 Dumbledore +7 Voldemort +6 Hermione +5 Ron +4 Fred (makes the list kind of awkward without George) +3 Harry +2 Hagrid +1 Draco
I have a difficult time believing Fred Weasley was mentioned more often than Luna Lovegood, Peter Pettigrew, Neville Longbottom, and about half of the Order. Just seems off...
Edit: And Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix Lestrange
--
Courtesy of fr0q: http://img.imgcake.com/gencardjpgha.jpg Courtesy of Pun: http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/4738/genesissaga.png
GenesisSaga posted... I have a difficult time believing Fred Weasley was mentioned more often than Luna Lovegood, Peter Pettigrew, Neville Longbottom, and about half of the Order. Just seems off...
Edit: And Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix Lestrange
I kind of wonder if those numbers count all references to Pettigrew. Like, if we lump Peter, Scabbers, and Wormtail together do his numbers skyrocket?
From: GenesisSaga | #041 I have a difficult time believing Fred Weasley was mentioned more often than Luna Lovegood, Peter Pettigrew, Neville Longbottom, and about half of the Order. Just seems off...
Edit: And Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix Lestrange
Luna Lovegood doesn't show up until Book 5.
Pettigrew doesn't get mentioned at all til Book 3, gets two scenes in Book 4, and then basically has cameos the rest of the way.
Bellatrix doesn't get mentioned til Book 4, doesn't get seen til the end of book 5.
Lucius Malfoy doesn't get much screentime, and is just kinda there.
Meanwhile, think of all the times that Harry was at the Burrow or otherwise with the Weaselys. Think of all the times he played Quidditch. Think of all the times he was in the Gryffindor common room. Fred and George were in the background in all of those scenes.
--
"nah, it's not my team if I drop pitchers for merely being horrible" -War13104
AlecTrevelyan006 posted... From: GenesisSaga | #041 I have a difficult time believing Fred Weasley was mentioned more often than Luna Lovegood, Peter Pettigrew, Neville Longbottom, and about half of the Order. Just seems off...
Edit: And Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix Lestrange Luna Lovegood doesn't show up until Book 5.
True, but she gets plenty of mentions in the three books she appears in.
Pettigrew doesn't get mentioned at all til Book 3, gets two scenes in Book 4, and then basically has cameos the rest of the way.
True, but as Gerbil(?) said, he was present from the get-go as Scabbers and known by a few monikers that may have detracted from his total number of mentions.
Bellatrix doesn't get mentioned til Book 4, doesn't get seen til the end of book 5.
Lucius Malfoy doesn't get much screentime, and is just kinda there.
Okay, I'll give you these two.
Meanwhile, think of all the times that Harry was at the Burrow or otherwise with the Weaselys. Think of all the times he played Quidditch. Think of all the times he was in the Gryffindor common room. Fred and George were in the background in all of those scenes.
True, but I still doubt commentary from Lee Jordan á la "Fred Weasley sends a Bludger flying in x player's direction", and introducing joke candies and firecrackers to other students in the background would be enough to combat some of the other characters mentioned. I just don't know about that, man.
--
Courtesy of fr0q: http://img.imgcake.com/gencardjpgha.jpg Courtesy of Pun: http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/4738/genesissaga.png
I think you are underestimating how pervasive the twins are.
Just using a search of my ebooks... Fred is mentioned 34 times in Sorceror's Stone. Fred is then mentioned 103 times in Chamber of Secrets. Azakaban is a down book, 77 references to Fred. In Goblet of Fire, he is mentioned 192 times. Most notably at the World Cup. Fred got 338 references in Book 5 (Dumbledore's Army, Quidditch, Grimmald Place, Weasley's Wizard Wheezes I guess!). Down to 80 in Book 6. Only 95 in book 7. It comes to a total of some 920 references.
Hell, all the Weasleys score high. George is 12th at 821, Arthur is 14th (780), Ginny is 15th (771), Molly is 17th (722), even Percy is top 30 with 426. Harry spends a ****load of time with them and sees them for significant time in EVERY book (except Bill and Charlie and eventually Percy of course).
Lupin is 11 at 864 (that is FAR more of a surprise to me), Neville is 13 (810), McGonagall is 16 (770), Umbridge is 18 (637), Moody is 19 (583), Uncle Vernon is 20 (530), Cornelius Fudge is 21 (493), Wormtail is 22 (486), Dobby 23 (469), Dudley 24 (467) and Slughorn rounds out the top 25 with 432 references.
And really, this makes sense. Neville has the same role as Fred and George in most of the books (random background character) despite his eventual development, but he only sees Harry at school. Luna shows up as a background character in Book 5 who has a few random conversations but kinda flits in and out of scenes for the rest of the series.
Meanwhile, Pettigrew had 11 and 3 references in the first two books respectively. In book 5 he gets 21, only 9 in book 6, and ~30 references in Book 7. So of his 486 references, almost all of them are in books 3 and 4.
I wouldn't argue that they're more IMPORTANT but showing up more makes sense.