flaws (Spoilers)

Crumble Froo

Stargal wrote:

But it doesn't seem that the books are set in the same year that they're published. When Harry sees his parents gravestones, it says that they died on October 31st 1981. I can't remember if he was just three months old, or 1 year and 3 months when they died, but basically, it means he was either born in 1980 or 1981, so Deathly Hallows is set in 1997 or 1998.

it was, i think the halloween after he was a year old that his parents died, as, in grimmauld place, he sees a picture of himself at his first birthday after getting the toy broomstick from sirius, and later, when voldemort is reminiscing about godric's hollow, there's reference to halloween in the form of costumes, as far as i can remember.

Crumble Froo

Overheal wrote:

which means playstations wouldnt have existed at all! Sonnofab*!!
But seriously let that one go: its just a playstation.


Okay I dont have the books at my disposal so I have to ask this one:

- In book1, Voldemort is clearly still the shapeless form of himself that failed to kill harry
- In book4, Voldemort is ressurected in the ritual - what was involved there? Was a horcrux used to help him along with harrys blood? How did his body take shape then when he was placed in the cauldron?

basically, that one was magic... dont have the books in this house, but wormtail had to give his hand, didnt he? there was flesh, blood, and something else i cant remember in there, obviously very powerful dark magic.

- when and where did Harry first see the diadem? which book?

in the half blood prince, i *think*, after he's used sectumsempra on malfoy, and snape realises that he has the potions book, harry throws it into the room of requirement to hide it...
but he makes reference to the wig... so maybe it wasnt that particular instance, but once he'd said it, i knew id read it already, twas definitely when he was hiding something in the room of requirement anyway.

As for Hogwarts: Ive learned to disregard everything said about its scale or the seating capacity of the great hall and what not. In book 1 there were only 7 professors and by book 7 they had added one for astronomy and fortune telling and muggle studies....so yeah. I just gave up.

yeah, that one kinda bugged me a bit too, ill have to reread to see if she did specifically say that that's all there was or just if they were the only ones mentioned, but i remember thinking that before alright.

- What compells buckbeak the Hippogriff, free and clear, to show up on the back of a flock of thestrals at the final battle?

his life has been saved by harry,and hagrid is obviously an important figure to him... in the third one, when they are hiding in the forest as hagrid is leaving his hut, buckbeak pulls on the string or whatever, trying to get to hagrid. since the third one, he has been looked after by harry, sirius and hagrid.

- Why not hire muggle-born islamic terrorists to capture harry potter and brainwash him into carrying an Ak-47 and a pair of shoebombs?

cos they wouldna gotten him when he was young enough.

- Greyback get killed under a chandelier....then re-appears at the final battle again.

i thought that he had been holding hermione, and when the chandelier fell, he had dived out of the way, but been unconscious or something... i dont remember getting the impression that he'd been killed, but ive only read that book once, so its hard to recall exactly.

- How come they nevr just casted Immobulus on the Whomping Willow? Worked in the ****ty movie.

cos its a magic tree and it'll only respond to pressing the knot? i think best bet would be to keep the two mediums separate...

- if the 5th law of transfiguration denies the conjuration of food, how in the 2nd book does McGonnagle (spelling sucks!) produce a plate for both Harry and Ron that supplies a theoretically endless supply of sandwhiches?

you have to know where the food is coming from, or something like that, but once you have it, you can make it keep refilling itself. harry asks this question about mrs weasley when he first hears the law.

- Why doesnt the painting of Phineas just tell them he knows where the sword of Gryffindor is? Why doesnt Snape just have him do so after setting up a prime location for a test of valor?

he doesnt especially like being helpful? hmm.. i found this bit of the book a lil slow, and didnt pay particular attention, but it's maybe cos snape just didnt tell him... didnt trust him (though he *has* to do the headmaster's bidding, right?)...

- was it book 5, that contained a couple dirty references such as cho getting wet or something like that.... it always disturbed me to read it in a childrens novel.

i think twas referring to her crying all the time.... even when she was kissing harry...

- Mrs.weasley's epic battle with Belatrix was just that: epic!

- Why didnt Snape confide in McGonagle the truth about that night on the tower?

no idea... maybe cos she wouldnt believe him... maybe cos then he'd have to explain the rest and didnt want to, maybe cos the dark lord might then find out... hard to say really...

Corruptedmorals

Overheal wrote:

- In book1, Voldemort is clearly still the shapeless form of himself that failed to kill harry
- In book4, Voldemort is ressurected in the ritual - what was involved there? Was a horcrux used to help him along with harrys blood? How did his body take shape then when he was placed in the cauldron?

No, before he was dumped in the cauldron, he was in the form of a scabby baby, something like that, because he had regained strength 'under the clumsy care' or Wormtail. The ritual is clearly dark magic, 3 things are needed. Bone of the father 'Bone of the father, unknowingly given, you will renew your son!' (that's why they were in the graveyard), flesh of the enemy- Wormtail's hand 'Flesh of the servant, willingly given, you will revive your master!'..and blood of the foe..I forget Harry's one 'Blood of the enemy, forcibly taken,you will resurrect your foe?'.

So anyway, the cauldron hisses a lot, and then Voldy rises from it, the 3 things are somehow dark-magicy able to restore his former body. No horcrux.

- when and where did Harry first see the diadem? which book?

Book 6, when he has the Half Blood Prince's potions book, and Snape guesses. Harry legs it with the book, borrows Ron's potions book, goes to the room of requirement, says 'I need a place to hide my book'...and the ROR becomes the Room of Hidden Things. He hides the HBP's book in a blistered cabinet, with a bust on top, then sticks a tiara (diadem) on top so he'll know where to find it again.

As for Hogwarts: Ive learned to disregard everything said about its scale or the seating capacity of the great hall and what not. In book 1 there were only 7 professors and by book 7 they had added one for astronomy and fortune telling and muggle studies....so yeah. I just gave up.

What's wrong with that? Astronomy porfessor isn't mentioned for a few books...they don't take up Divination until Book 3..Hermione took Muggle Studies but the professor isn't mentioned until Book 7. But Professor Vector is mentioned- Arithmancy.

- Greyback get killed under a chandelier....then re-appears at the final battle again.

It never says that. Bellatrix gets out of the way, it falls on Hermione and Griphook. Harry takes the 3 wands off Draco, points them all at Greyback, and stupefies him, obviously he's knocked out. He doesn't die.

- How come they nevr just casted Immobulus on the Whomping Willow? Worked in the ****ty movie.

Cinematic license? The only thing to stop it was probably the knot on the trunk.

- if the 5th law of transfiguration denies the conjuration of food, how in the 2nd book does McGonnagle (spelling sucks!) produce a plate for both Harry and Ron that supplies a theoretically endless supply of sandwhiches?

Food cannot be brought from nothing. She BRINGS them food, and food is able to have it's quantity increases, which it does.

- Why doesnt the painting of Phineas just tell them he knows where the sword of Gryffindor is? Why doesnt Snape just have him do so after setting up a prime location for a test of valor?

Wouldn't be as dramatic? Maybe Snape thought Harry would somehow recognise the doe...wanted him to guess his allegiance? Phineas would never do that by himself anyway, he's loyal to Snape.

- Why didnt Snape confide in McGonagle the truth about that night on the tower?

The less people who knew, the better? I don't know actually...presume Dumbledore didn't want anyone to know. Can't answer the other things you said.

randomchild

- Why didnt Snape confide in McGonagle the truth about that night on the tower?

2 reasons:

1/ If McGonagle were to be captured, Voldemort would figure out that Snape is a double agent.

2/ The story would be more believable for the death eaters if everyone in hogwarts believed Snape was working for Voldemort all along, rather than having people in on it.

The Bollox

Overheal wrote:

which means playstations wouldnt have existed at all! Sonnofab*!!
But seriously let that one go: its just a playstation.


Okay I dont have the books at my disposal so I have to ask this one:

- In book1, Voldemort is clearly still the shapeless form of himself that failed to kill harry
- In book4, Voldemort is ressurected in the ritual - what was involved there? Was a horcrux used to help him along with harrys blood? How did his body take shape then when he was placed in the cauldron?

- when and where did Harry first see the diadem? which book?



As for Hogwarts: Ive learned to disregard everything said about its scale or the seating capacity of the great hall and what not. In book 1 there were only 7 professors and by book 7 they had added one for astronomy and fortune telling and muggle studies....so yeah. I just gave up.

- What compells buckbeak the Hippogriff, free and clear, to show up on the back of a flock of thestrals at the final battle?

- Why not hire muggle-born islamic terrorists to capture harry potter and brainwash him into carrying an Ak-47 and a pair of shoebombs?

- Greyback get killed under a chandelier....then re-appears at the final battle again.

- How come they nevr just casted Immobulus on the Whomping Willow? Worked in the ****ty movie.

- if the 5th law of transfiguration denies the conjuration of food, how in the 2nd book does McGonnagle (spelling sucks!) produce a plate for both Harry and Ron that supplies a theoretically endless supply of sandwhiches?

- Why doesnt the painting of Phineas just tell them he knows where the sword of Gryffindor is? Why doesnt Snape just have him do so after setting up a prime location for a test of valor?

- was it book 5, that contained a couple dirty references such as cho getting wet or something like that.... it always disturbed me to read it in a childrens novel.

- Mrs.weasley's epic battle with Belatrix was just that: epic!

- Why didnt Snape confide in McGonagle the truth about that night on the tower?



Yeah thats all out of me, for the moment.

he found the Diadem in HBP, when he hid the potions book in the room of requrement he placed the manequin head with the diadem on it infront of the locker where the potions book is

Gingervitis

Not necessarily flaws, but a little too convenient...

I felt the destruction of the remaining horcruxes (cup and diadem particularly) to be a little forced, for want of a better word. Crabbe, the stupid kid, suddenly comes up with a magical fire that's never been mentioned before in the books (Fiendfyre), that's meant to be complex dark magic.
Granted, Alecto probably taught it to him, and it was mentioned that he had shown a talent for dark magic, but it suddenly being one of the only things that destroys Horcuxes? that's handy:rolleyes:
Even worse, Ron suddenly becomes a Parseltongue? guess it's not that hard!

I just felt that JK wanted to concentrate on the battle with Voldemort as soon as possible, and therefore that section of the book got kinda rushed...

How come the elder wand became Grindewalds, if he just stole it from Gregorovitch? i concede that it could come under the "taken without owner's consent" condition of allegiance switching, but it just seems a bit tenuous (really out on a limb here:p )

one last one, a real deus ex machina, with harry happening to steal the elder wand from malfoy without knowing it, who also didn't know he had it! that wand must be really smart!

Just minor gripes, still very well wrapped up though

watna

But Malfoy didn't have the elder wand, he was just the rightful owner because he disarmed Dumbledore. Because Harry disarmed him (of his own wand) he was the rightful owner of it, even though the elder wand was not invovled. I do agree though that it was a bit convenient that Harry happened to meet Draco and disarm him. I understand that the wand was the "superwand" but it's smartness was a bit far-fetched. That it would recognise that harry was now it's true owner even though it wasn't there when Harry disarmed Draco etc.

hussey

Why did kreacher have to drink the potion in the first place?

I mean if Vol was just setting it all up, why did he need to drink it to empty the bowl?

Crumble Froo

to test it.

The Bollox

one more flaw from me: in GoF when all the reverse echo's, or whatever they are start coming out of Voldy's wand, James comes out before Lily when it should have been the other way around

whatawaster

Yeah JKR herself has said that that is an error.


Another question: Given that Harry was protected by virtue of the fact that his blood was in Voldemort, would that mean that at their duel at the very end, if Voldemort had tried to kill Harry it wouldn't have worked again?

Crumble Froo

dont think so... remember during voldemort's 'resurrection' type thing, when he could touch harry again.. the couldnt kill him I THINK was only that once...when harry was a baby... after that, he technically could kill harry, except that harry just kept getting lucky.

The Bollox

narco wrote:

dont think so... remember during voldemort's 'resurrection' type thing, when he could touch harry again.. the couldnt kill him I THINK was only that once...when harry was a baby... after that, he technically could kill harry, except that harry just kept getting lucky.

I dissagree, there was no direct attack on Harry by Voldemort before his ressurrection, so we can't be certain, but I remember Quirrell, while being possessed, couldn't harm Harry without doing himself grevious bodily harm. the only time Voldemort came close was when he got the Basilisk to bite him, and it succeded, but that proves nothing because it was an indirect attack. I think the "you can't kill me" protection lasted up until Voldy took his blood

Crumble Froo

fuziness! dammit.. i remember harry bein subjected to the crucio curse though.. was that his death eaters then?

bah, my family are on hols and they have all my books:rolleyes:

The Bollox

you're going to have to be clearer on that, do you mean in the forbidden forrest or in another book?

Crumble Froo

im talking about the resurrection in goblet of fire, sorry...

The Bollox

he does use it on him, but at that time Voldy had Harry's blood in his veins and he didn't have the Elder wand, so Harry had no protection at this time

whatawaster

I'm confused here.
Is the reason Harry wasn't killed in the forbidden forest not because Voldemort has Harry's blood, and thus while Voldemort lived, Harry lived. Hence Dumbledore's "gleam of triumph" in GOF.
So would the same not hold through in their later duel. Voldemort cannot kill Harry, that's surely the reason Dumbledore was so confident about sending Harry into battle against the most powerful Dark wizard there has ever been.

The Bollox

that would have meant there would have been a stalemate, as neither would have been able to kill the other

whatawaster

No, Harry could kill Voldemort, that's why it was so crucial to destroy the horcruxes, to make him mortal again.

JC 2K3

The Bollox wrote:

one more flaw from me: in GoF when all the reverse echo's, or whatever they are start coming out of Voldy's wand, James comes out before Lily when it should have been the other way around

Not in later editions

The Bollox

what?

the text changed?

in mine it reads "James emerged from the wand and said to Harry 'you're mother is on her way, she's looking forward to seeing you'" or something like that. what does it read in yours?

JC 2K3

Well I have the early edition too, but look at a copy in any bookshop. The text is changed and Lily comes out first.

The Bollox

lol

has anything else changed?

gubbie

watna wrote:

But Voldemort could get the snake to live in Bathilda Bagshot's body and have her walk and talk and find Harry. That's not what a normal snake or magical animal would do. That's very dark magic. That's what makes me think Nagini was a horcrux.

Its like if you treat a dog really nicely, train it and then ask it to do something, it will (but it'll probably do it better if you bark at it)

nipplenuts wrote:

OK. These books are for children. They are not intended to be anything more than a diversion for children. Unless all the previous posters are under 12 years old, they need to get some perspective and stop treating childrens entertainment as some kind of scientific journal.

So, not to berate you for your choice of reading material - you can read what you want to - if you enjoyed it don't let picking holes in it detract from that.

Hey numnuts but most of us were kids when the books came out. I was 10. I went to the book opening and most people there were our age too. You know there are people who study Harry Potter in UCD?

whatawaster wrote:

One major flaw is that Trelawney knew that Snape interrupted the prophecy, which would mean he heard it all, as she goes into a trance when she makes her real predictions.

I was convinced this meant that snape purposely only told Voldy half the prophecy. However, The Prince's Tale, contradicts this. He told Dumbledore he only told him what he'd heard. I see no reason why he would have lied here.

She had no idea though that she was making the prophecy. Dumbledore said that he never thought anything of her power or that she'd inherited any of the skill from her grandmother until she made the prophecy

Cathooo wrote:

He mightnt have known harry was a horcrux, it was a bad night for him that night, i doubt he'd have known what he was exactly feeling!!!

Nagini was definitely a horcrux, why else would he have put her in the protective bubble?

Maybe Nagini wasn't a horcrux though... like you said just above about Harry "He mightn't have known Harry was a horcrux" and Voldemort didn't actually know that his other horcruxs were dead, not until he went and found them. So I believe that he completely segregated himself from the other parts of his soul, therefore its open. I always thought that he was planning on making a final horcrux, the most powerful one yet, out of his most powerful foe-Harry (I mean by his death) but it backfired and Harry became the horcrux but he didn't realise

There's been a load of evil wizards that didn't go to Hogwarts that being proof in itself-that principal in GOF who flees and then dies and that guy in DH that Dumbledore defeats (sorry about vagueness memorys awful!)

Faith wrote:

The books don't go like that. Chronologically, it may have been 1994, but the book was set in the same year as it was published, because it's easier. Therefore, it was about 2000 (?) and Playstations did exist.

No they weren't. If you look at the tombstones when Lily and James died it was 1981 (which I thought wierdly made them only 21) and Harry was one at the time, so Harry was born in 1980. He's 17 in the final book so that makes it 1997.

robinph wrote:

7. Nagini - by killing the old bloke in the Riddle house.

I think he would have done it after his revival. He was way too weak then

The Bollox wrote:

I dissagree, there was no direct attack on Harry by Voldemort before his ressurrection, so we can't be certain, but I remember Quirrell, while being possessed, couldn't harm Harry without doing himself grevious bodily harm. the only time Voldemort came close was when he got the Basilisk to bite him, and it succeded, but that proves nothing because it was an indirect attack. I think the "you can't kill me" protection lasted up until Voldy took his blood

Ya there was-he attacked him at the very start when he was with Hagrid


My thing is Fleur and Bill... she participated in the triwizard tournament in GOF so max age she could have been is 17. The next year she starts going out with Bill (in which he gives her private english lessons) Then 2 years later she gets married... thats only 19. Bill was born in 1970 (according to really smart people who figured it out) so that makes him... about 27. Now thats a difference

robinph

gubbie wrote:

Hey numnuts but most of us were kids when the books came out. I was 10. I went to the book opening and most people there were our age too.

Whoops, I think I'd best leave now then.

Crumble Froo

gubbie wrote:

My thing is Fleur and Bill... she participated in the triwizard tournament in GOF so max age she could have been is 17. The next year she starts going out with Bill (in which he gives her private english lessons) Then 2 years later she gets married... thats only 19. Bill was born in 1970 (according to really smart people who figured it out) so that makes him... about 27. Now thats a difference

surely 17 is the minimum age she could have been? you'll have to look up yourself how long they stay in school in beauxbatons (i remember her telling them when they were waiting for OWLS results that they do it differently over there), but she could have been 18 (fred and george were of age, but not finished in school yet).. or maybe even 19 ,and so 20 or 21 by the time she was married. not a huge difference. but anyway, what's age when it comes to love, but an irrelevant number?

bounty_hunter

watna wrote:

It wasn't split in to 6, it was 7. one part of his soul was still in Voldemort's body so the horcruxes were

1) The diary
2) The ring
3) the cup
4) the diadem
5) the snake
6) harry
7) voldemort.

He wanted his soul to be split into seven pieces, therefore he only intended to make 6 horcruxes, the 7th part of his soul remaining within his own body.
The horcruxes were as follows (in no particular order):
1) Marvolo's ring
2) Ravenclaw's diadem
3) The diary
4) Hufflepuff's cup
5) Nagini
6) Slytherin's Locket

Harry was an accidental horcrux that Voldemort wasn't aware of. So in actual fact his soul had been split into 8 parts, which made him infinitely more vulnerable.

And to the people who are questioning whether or not Nagini was a horcrux, how could you be in any doubt?! Read the book again!


Edit: Apologies, I see Faith has already posted something very similar. Although I don't see how there could be any misunderstanding about it in the first place!

The Bollox

gubbie wrote:

Ya there was-he attacked him at the very start when he was with Hagrid

are you refering to the start of DH or when Harry gets rescued by Hagrid from the hut on the sea?

because if you are talking about the start of DH it was AFTER the ressurection, so Harry had no protection and Voldy wasn't using the Elder wand at this point

watna

I have another flaw. Voldemort tells Harry that he has not been able to keep a defence against the dark arts teacher for more than one year after he turned Voldemort down for the job. However, in book 1 Hagrid introduces Harry to Quirrell over the summer and says he teaches defence against the dark arts. Also, Voldemort (I can' remember when) says it was great that Quirell was wandering in Albania and was a teacher at Dumbledore's school. If Dumbledore could never keep a defence against the dark arts for more than one year did Quirell teach another subject before that and did Hagrid know he was moving? It doesn't really make sense though.