Ianna wrote: Since I don't live in London, does Highgate really exsist there?

Probably. Stroud made stories out of real things. Eh, but I dunno. Ask Galdstone.

-William Gladstone- wrote: Ya,

Gladstone was a major Politician of the Time, and you know the statues mentioned in AoS of him, they really do exist in London. Ive seen one of them in person.

I know, I saw them too. London is beautiful! I will probably go to college over there.

Ianna wrote: That's awesome.

Since I don't live in London, does Highgate really exsist there?

This kind of relates because you saying that reminded me of the statue of Gladstone in the Underwoods garden.

Highgate does exist yes, as for it being really, rich, I am not sure. Don't think its that a rich area, not compared to other areas.

It wasnt in the Underwoods garden, it was like at the back of their Garden, but no in it...

That's what I meant...

And that's really cool. I wonder if that burned library is something we could track down.

Dunno, Stroud doesnt give exact directions does he.

If youve got google Earth, then type in Highgate, London, and have a look for yourself.

Google Earth - entirely free satellite image viewer.

Highgate looks like a regular street. I kinda expected it to be more dramatic. *what a letdown*

wrote: Only powerful (or exceptionally charismatic) magicians get to become Prime Minister.

I didn't know magicians could be charismatic. They all seemed very selfish and power-hungry to me. Even Nat for most of the time.

Yeah, but Nat was charismatic, people liked him, just like Lovelace. Maybe they were selfish, but others saw their charisma behore that.

In Amulet of Samarkand, The PM has charasmia. At least to me, anyway.

You're right. And you don't have to be a good person in order to be charismatic, for example look at Tom Riddle (shhh, I'm NOT talking about Harry Potter over here!)

Correct.

Though just to point out, the other magicians didn't really like Nat, especially in Golem's Eye.

Maybe it was his clothes?

But he didn't like them either, and their attitudes weren't the nicest. ( Jessica Whitewall-ditching him, PM forcing him to go to theatre...etc)

If anyone, Nat was more in the right than any of them, in my opinion.

Actually, I think it was....

'his hair is far too long and he has an insolent face.'

Fry said that, I think.

Belinda wrote: You're right. And you don't have to be a good person in order to be charismatic, for example look at Tom Riddle (shhh, I'm NOT talking about Harry Potter over here!)

:D

wrote:'his hair is far too long and he has an insolent face.'

That's cold!

And I don't think Nat can hide his emotions very well. In the book, it said that everyone could see how power hungry and arrogant he was. I guess it was pretty easy for them to dislike him because they couldn't respect somone they could see right through.

There's nothing wrong with mentioning HP here.

Well, some emotions were hidden deep down.

Mainly because he forgot them, but hey, that's ok.

Luciene wrote: @ Apocrypha (cool name...just realized)

:D Thanks. It's the name of Ptolemy's book, for those who don't know.

Double Post, lucience. Anyways, Nat should not have had that miraclelous transformation at the end... sure, some softening, but not a Complete turnaround.

Whoops....

But it was kinda believable because he was losing everything at that point. If he didn't have a turnaround, he would have lost himself and become a completely tragic hero. When he turned good, at least people sympathized with him instead of thinking that he was a total...