Login  
 
 
Go Back   Chamber of Secrets > Forum Archives > Post DH References

Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3



 
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old September 30th, 2010, 8:11 pm
lilyrose's Avatar
lilyrose  Female.gif lilyrose is offline
Conquering Reading Lists
 
Joined: 5275 days
Location: The Commonwealth of Literature
Posts: 2,288
Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

Welcome to the newest version of this thread!

Version 1
Version 2

Last couple of posts from Version 2:

Rememberall:    


  
Reading Half Blood Prince and in the Chapter The Seer Overheard.. when Harry was questioning Trewlany about the ROR she says something to the effect " I wasn't aware students knew about the room"

Really? during the OOTP when Umbridge discovered D A in there wouldn't that have been a topic of conversation in the teachers lounge? trivial but it stood out..after reading it umpteen times.
  


TeenMuggle:    


  
Yeah, that does seem kinda strange. It may have been that the teachers simply weren't aware of where the meetings had been taking place, after all, after Dumbledore's escape I doubt Umbridge would have liked it to become a topic of general discussion. And also, perhaps Trewlawney wasn't aware of what the room really was, to her it seemed to become The Room of Hidden Things. Perhaps she never made the connection between that room and the D.A's headquarters. After all, most people who use it can't be aware of it's true nature. Fred and George had once used it, but to them it had become a broom cupboard, in order to hide from Filch.
It does seem weird though, considering that the room is packed with stuff which obviously must come from students. However Trelawney did always see herself as somewhat superior to others...
  


gelowo93:    


  I agree with TeenMuggle's answer, but would like to add that we know that Trelawney rarely went to meals in the Great Hall (I think she goes to 2 or 3 in the whole series) so maybe she also didn't go into the teacher's lounge? So even if the teachers did talk about it she wouldn't have heard about it.  


Wab:    


  Or the simpler explanation: Trelawney was lying. Which is even more likely given that she was using it to hide her empty bottles.  



__________________
"At the end of the first round, I will award three points to Mr. Kaine for an excellent nonspecific condemnation, plus one bonus point for blaming the previous government and another for successfully mutating the question to promote the party line. Mr. van de Poste gets a point for a firm rebuttal, but only two points for his condemnation, as he tried to inject an impartial and intelligent observation"
- Jasper Fforde, Something Rotten


Avatar credit: RachelDinozzo at Deviantart

Rita Skeeter was here
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old September 30th, 2010, 8:51 pm
LyraLovegood  Female.gif LyraLovegood is offline
Fifth Year
 
Joined: 4024 days
Location: Left Coast USA
Age: 51
Posts: 998
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

I tend to agree with gelowo93: Trelawny wasn't aware of other people's knowledge of the room because she tended to avoid other people. She claims to avoid meals in The Great Hall because it clouds her inner eye. I can't imagine her spending time in the teachers' lounge, basically for the same reason. The only places Harry sees Trelawny, for the most part, is in her Tower Room, or in the halls on her way to complain to Dumbledore about the Centaur Firenze teaching her topic. There are a few exceptions, but they are, well, few.

She claims it all as not wanting interferance from other mortals with her ability to See, but I think, from the way the character is portrayed, that Sybil Trelawny is socially awkward. I know from experience that socially awkward people are generally not privvy to information that may be common knowledge amongst their more socially active peers. Professors talking amongst themselves about Dumbledore's Army would be an example of such knowledge: the other Professors may have talked about it, but Sybil never heard it because she was busy hiding from reality by drinking cooking sherry.

I also get the impression that the other Professors didn't like or respect her much. McGonagall in particular has some rather critical things to say about Divination in general and about Sybil in particular. It is admirable in McGonagall, I think, to look out for Sybil regardless of this personal distaste when Umbridge is being horrible as Hogwarts High Inquisitor.


__________________
"You don't ever have to feel guilty about removing toxic people from your life. It doesn't matter whether someone is a relative, romantic interest, employer, childhood friend, or a new acquaintance--You don't have to make room for people who cause you pain or make you feel small. It's one thing if a person owns up to their behavior and makes an effort to change. But if a person disregards your feelings, ignores your boundaries, and *continues* to treat you in a harmful way, they need to go."
~Danielle Koepke~
~~~ ~~~

Last edited by LyraLovegood; September 30th, 2010 at 8:55 pm.
  #3  
Old September 30th, 2010, 8:56 pm
FutureAuthor13's Avatar
FutureAuthor13  Female.gif FutureAuthor13 is offline
Fifth Year
 
Joined: 3417 days
Location: Scotland or wherever Remus is!
Age: 24
Posts: 787
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyraLovegood View Post
She claims it all as not wanting interferance from other mortals with her ability to See, but I think, from the way the character is portrayed, that Sybil Trelawny is socially awkward. I know from experience that socially awkward people are generally not privvy to information that may be common knowledge amongst their more socially active peers. Professors talking amongst themselves about Dumbledore's Army would be an example of such knowledge: the other Professors may have talked about it, but Sybil never heard it because she was busy hiding from reality by drinking cooking sherry.
Yes, exactly.


__________________
Jo FINDS me to be in .
Avatar by icandothat on LJ.
  #4  
Old September 30th, 2010, 10:06 pm
mugglebirth  Undisclosed.gif mugglebirth is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3345 days
Posts: 27
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

Regarding Trelawny and the Room of Requirement. I was trying to remember, wasn't she dismissed as a teacher by Umbridge long before the discovery of Dumbledore's Army?

Otherwise I would have to go with Wab on this one.


  #5  
Old September 30th, 2010, 10:42 pm
LyraLovegood  Female.gif LyraLovegood is offline
Fifth Year
 
Joined: 4024 days
Location: Left Coast USA
Age: 51
Posts: 998
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

Quote:
Originally Posted by mugglebirth View Post
Regarding Trelawny and the Room of Requirement. I was trying to remember, wasn't she dismissed as a teacher by Umbridge long before the discovery of Dumbledore's Army?
She was dismissed as a teacher, but remained at the castle. As far as I know, her movement about the castle and grounds were not restricted when Firenze took over her classes.

Dumbledore and McGonagall defended Trelawney's right to remain at Hogwarts and call it her home. It may very well be that she discovered the RoR while Firenze was teaching her classes, especially if she was looking for a place to hide her discomfiture (and her empty bottles) from the Inquisitorial Squad.

She would have had to find it available to her only when the DA was not meeting, though.


__________________
"You don't ever have to feel guilty about removing toxic people from your life. It doesn't matter whether someone is a relative, romantic interest, employer, childhood friend, or a new acquaintance--You don't have to make room for people who cause you pain or make you feel small. It's one thing if a person owns up to their behavior and makes an effort to change. But if a person disregards your feelings, ignores your boundaries, and *continues* to treat you in a harmful way, they need to go."
~Danielle Koepke~
~~~ ~~~
  #6  
Old September 30th, 2010, 11:52 pm
leah49's Avatar
leah49  Female.gif leah49 is offline
Ron's Pygmy Puff
 
Joined: 4469 days
Location: Weasley's Wizard Wheezes
Age: 37
Posts: 6,390
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

Quote:
Reading Half Blood Prince and in the Chapter The Seer Overheard.. when Harry was questioning Trewlany about the ROR she says something to the effect " I wasn't aware students knew about the room"

Really? during the OOTP when Umbridge discovered D A in there wouldn't that have been a topic of conversation in the teachers lounge? trivial but it stood out..after reading it umpteen times.
Does Trelawney hang out in the teacher's lounge? She seems very much a loner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mugglebirth View Post
Regarding Trelawny and the Room of Requirement. I was trying to remember, wasn't she dismissed as a teacher by Umbridge long before the discovery of Dumbledore's Army?

Otherwise I would have to go with Wab on this one.
Another possible reason as to why she didn't visit the teacher's lounge to hear them talk of the RoR.


__________________



I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
Philippians 3:14

My Graphics|Aftermath|Goodreads|My Blog
I may disagree with you politically, religiously, and/or on Snape but that doesn't mean I dislike you.
  #7  
Old October 1st, 2010, 12:04 am
jeanine123  Undisclosed.gif jeanine123 is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3369 days
Posts: 84
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

I agree that it's pretty unlikely that Trelawney would hang out in the teacher's lounge or talk much with the other teachers. It wouldn't surprise me at all if she never heard of Dumbledore's Army.

Though it does make me wonder why she remained at the school after Dumbledore was forced into hiding by Fudge and Umbridge. I would have thought after Umbridge became headmistress she would have had Trelawney removed. Unless there was some kind of spell to prevent her from doing so like there was preventing her from using Dumbledore's/the current head master/misstress's office?


  #8  
Old October 1st, 2010, 4:40 am
meesha1971's Avatar
meesha1971  Female.gif meesha1971 is offline
Master of the Magical Arts
 
Joined: 5328 days
Location: The Unknowable Room
Age: 48
Posts: 12,731
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMotherCrow
I don't think there is a contradiction, because I don't think that scene implied that the Ministry could use a trace to possitively identify someone with a trace on them. I think the idea was that if Harry still had a trace, the powers of the Ministry would pick up the Apparition coinciding with the raid on the wedding. Death Eaters came to investigate, but it doesn't seem to me that they knew Harry was there. And as it turned out when we finally got the explanation of how they had found the Trio, they didn't know Harry was there: It was the Taboo, which doesn't seem to identify the person saying "Voldemort", but does give away location, much like a trace.
I was referring to the scenes in the cafe and at Grimmauld Place. After the Death Eaters found them so quickly at the cafe, Hermione was worried that Harry might still have the Trace on him. That was the only thing she could think of that would allow the Death Eaters to track Harry specifically - which means it would have to identify Harry in order for them to do that. Ron says that is impossible - not because it would not identify, but rather because the Trace could not be put on adults. Lupin confirms that when he comes to Grimmauld Place and says that the Death Eaters would know exactly where Harry was if he still had the Trace on him. They rule it out because Harry is of age and it's pretty obvious that the Death Eaters outside don't know Harry is in Grimmauld Place - they would have known Harry was there if he still had the Trace on him.

That is a contradiction to Dumbledore's statement that the Ministry could not detect who was doing the magic because, in order to track someone and know exactly where they are, the Trace would have to identify the person. They found out later that the Death Eaters were using the Taboo, but the conversations they have about the Trace in the cafe and Grimmauld Place reveal how it works - at least, how it works in DH.

Quote:
The only possibility that makes sense to me is that the area around the Dursley home had been enchanted by the Ministry to make both Apparition and Portkeys not work there anymore. We know that there are Anti-Disapparation jinxes, and that areas (like Hogwarts and its grounds) can be permanently protected. But it wouldn't matter for the Death Eaters because they couldn't find the Dursley home thanks to Dumbledore's enchantment, so the only effect was to turn the house into a trap for Harry.
If there was a way to prevent a portkey from working, then why wouldn't they use that at Hogwarts? Portkeys work at Hogwarts in spite of the anti-apparition jinx. We see that with Crouch Jr. making an unauthorized portkey without anyone being aware of that in GOF as well as Dumbledore making two unauthorized portkeys in OOTP - the second was made at the Ministry at the end when he was not officially the Headmaster and hadn't even been inside the castle in quite some time. We also see that at the Burrow in DH - they had to go beyond the boundaries of the property to apparate, but the portkeys all worked within the boundaries of the property. As far as we're shown, portkeys cannot be blocked or tracked - and they could be made in advance so the Trace would not detect them - so that would have been the more logical choice for getting Harry away from Privet Dr.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanine123 View Post
I agree that it's pretty unlikely that Trelawney would hang out in the teacher's lounge or talk much with the other teachers. It wouldn't surprise me at all if she never heard of Dumbledore's Army.
I agree. Trelawney was very awkward in social situations and she doesn't really have much of a social relationship with any of the teachers. When she does try to talk to the other teachers, it's typically in the context of attempting to make predictions rather than discussing what's actually going on in the school. Trelawney does not appear to be someone who wants to get involved in the "physical world" if she can avoid it. She didn't even show up when McGonagall called the teachers to the staff room in COS after Ginny was taken into the Chamber.

Quote:
Though it does make me wonder why she remained at the school after Dumbledore was forced into hiding by Fudge and Umbridge. I would have thought after Umbridge became headmistress she would have had Trelawney removed. Unless there was some kind of spell to prevent her from doing so like there was preventing her from using Dumbledore's/the current head master/misstress's office?
Since Trelawney rarely came out of her tower even in normal circumstances, she probably just chose to stay in the tower all the time then so Umbridge probably forgot about her. Dumbledore may have helped that along by putting some kind of enchantment around that general area since students would no longer be going to the North Tower for Divination class - maybe something similar to what they used at the Quidditch World Cup that made muggles suddenly remember they had to be somewhere else.

Plus, Umbridge didn't exactly have an easy time of it as Headmistress of Hogwarts. Between the Weasley twins, the students who followed in the twins' steps after they left, and the teachers refusing to help her at all - not to mention Peeves - Umbridge had her hands full.


__________________

Reform must come from within, not from without. ~ James Cardinal Gibbons

"So, if people want information on my characters, then they have to accept that I'm going to give them the information on the characters. And if they don't like it, that's the nature of fiction. You have to accept someone else's world because they made that world, so they probably know a little better than you do what goes on there." ~ J.K. Rowling


All posts are my opinions and interpretations based on reading the Harry Potter books and interviews with J.K. Rowling.

  #9  
Old October 1st, 2010, 3:46 pm
OldMotherCrow's Avatar
OldMotherCrow  Female.gif OldMotherCrow is offline
Sixth Year
 
Joined: 4039 days
Location: Here. I'm pretty sure of it.
Posts: 1,297
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

Quote:
Originally Posted by meesha1971 View Post
I was referring to the scenes in the cafe and at Grimmauld Place. After the Death Eaters found them so quickly at the cafe, Hermione was worried that Harry might still have the Trace on him. That was the only thing she could think of that would allow the Death Eaters to track Harry specifically - which means it would have to identify Harry in order for them to do that.
I did not feel from that conversation that Hermione felt that Harry had been identified. I think that what she meant was that the Trace would show them appearing in a Muggle area at the exact same time that the Death Eaters started their raid on the wedding party, and several Death Eaters were dispatched to investigate. I think the Trio would know that if Harry was positively identified, a lot more than two Death Eaters would show up. The last time Voldemort had knwn Harry's whereabouts, he had sent thirty Death Eaters. So I think they were concerned that the Death Eaters had deduced where they where thanks to the Trace, rather than had positively identified Harry.

I agree that what Lupin says doesn't make sense-- except that he had just witnessed Hermione use magic while standing next to Harry, and I think that he could deduce that the Death Eaters could deduce that the only person with a Trace on them (if it had been a trace) who was unaccounted for and would hole up in Grimmauld place would be Harry Potter, and then if they thought that they would send more people. I think it is again simple deduction, not necessarily knowing.

Quote:
If there was a way to prevent a portkey from working, then why wouldn't they use that at Hogwarts?
If Portkeys were unblockable and untraceable, I think we would see them in use a lot more by the Bad Guys. Dumbledore made two Portkeys, but we know that as Headmaster he could alter the stricture against Apparating in Hogwarts (he did so for the Apparating lessons in HBP), so why not Portkey travel within Hogwarts? Barty Crouch's Portkey also took whoever touched the Cup to the grassy area in front of the stands, which leads me to believe that it was a Portkey authorized by the Headmaster that was meant to take the winner out of the maze, and Couch put a second unauthorized Portkey spell on it. Otherwise, why not use a Portkey at any time, rather than go through that complicated business of entering Harry in the TriWizard Tournament and cheating like crazy to assure he will win? Portkeys to the Burrow were all set up on timers ahead of time, as far as I know, so I believe they could be set up to be allowed for that particular moment. Otherwise, why not just make more Portkeys if one is missed? Why not have Voldemort simply Portkey into the Tonks house? Maybe not everyone knew how to do the the spell, but would Voldemort fail to learn an unblockable and untraceable means of breaking into anywhere? I'm pretty sure there are means for stopping Portkey travel, otherwise it would be in greater use, and all those other protections placed on areas would be worthless.


__________________
".... You've chosen your way, I've chosen mine."
I love Lily because she chooses a path to match her convictions, and chooses to live her life fighting for what is right. It is our choices that show who we truly are.

"UNTIL THE VERY END"
-- JK Rowling to Harry Potter fans at the beginning of Deathly Hallows, and James Potter to his son at the end of Deathly Hallows.
  #10  
Old October 1st, 2010, 11:18 pm
meesha1971's Avatar
meesha1971  Female.gif meesha1971 is offline
Master of the Magical Arts
 
Joined: 5328 days
Location: The Unknowable Room
Age: 48
Posts: 12,731
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMotherCrow View Post
I did not feel from that conversation that Hermione felt that Harry had been identified. I think that what she meant was that the Trace would show them appearing in a Muggle area at the exact same time that the Death Eaters started their raid on the wedding party, and several Death Eaters were dispatched to investigate. I think the Trio would know that if Harry was positively identified, a lot more than two Death Eaters would show up. The last time Voldemort had knwn Harry's whereabouts, he had sent thirty Death Eaters. So I think they were concerned that the Death Eaters had deduced where they where thanks to the Trace, rather than had positively identified Harry.

I agree that what Lupin says doesn't make sense-- except that he had just witnessed Hermione use magic while standing next to Harry, and I think that he could deduce that the Death Eaters could deduce that the only person with a Trace on them (if it had been a trace) who was unaccounted for and would hole up in Grimmauld place would be Harry Potter, and then if they thought that they would send more people. I think it is again simple deduction, not necessarily knowing.
But Hermione was concerned that they had identified Harry and that's why those two Death Eaters showed up within minutes to the exact location they were at. Of course, Hermione is panicking and not thinking the situation through logically - they hadn't actually done any magic for the Trace to detect after all - but Hermione is also "exposition girl". She's the one who knows how these things work because she was always reading and studying beyond what they were assigned. She is grasping at straws here because she does know that the Trace cannot be put on adults, but she speculates that maybe they figured out a way to do that because she can't think of any other way that the Death Eaters would have been able to identify Harry and know exactly where he was. We find out later that they hadn't and were just responding to the Taboo because Voldemort felt that only people in the Order would say his name and the Order would know where Harry was, but Hermione didn't know that at the time. She says specifically that it is Harry they're after - and Harry was hidden under the cloak so the only way for anyone to know he was there specifically - as Hermione believed - was if the Trace identified him.

I don't see Lupin's comments as strange - just contradictory to what Dumbledore said. But he is specific. If Harry still had the Trace on him, then the Death Eaters would have known for certain that he was at Grimmauld Place. They wouldn't have just been standing outside waiting for whoever was in there to come out - they would have been summoning Snape and Voldemort because they would have known they had Harry cornered and Snape could get in. That confirms what Hermione said before - the Trace would reveal Harry's location so the Death Eaters could track him specifically and the only way that would be possible was for the Trace to identify him. Lupin ruled out the Trace because it could not be put on adults and the Death Eaters did not know that Harry was there.

Quote:
If Portkeys were unblockable and untraceable, I think we would see them in use a lot more by the Bad Guys. Dumbledore made two Portkeys, but we know that as Headmaster he could alter the stricture against Apparating in Hogwarts (he did so for the Apparating lessons in HBP), so why not Portkey travel within Hogwarts? Barty Crouch's Portkey also took whoever touched the Cup to the grassy area in front of the stands, which leads me to believe that it was a Portkey authorized by the Headmaster that was meant to take the winner out of the maze, and Couch put a second unauthorized Portkey spell on it. Otherwise, why not use a Portkey at any time, rather than go through that complicated business of entering Harry in the TriWizard Tournament and cheating like crazy to assure he will win? Portkeys to the Burrow were all set up on timers ahead of time, as far as I know, so I believe they could be set up to be allowed for that particular moment. Otherwise, why not just make more Portkeys if one is missed? Why not have Voldemort simply Portkey into the Tonks house? Maybe not everyone knew how to do the the spell, but would Voldemort fail to learn an unblockable and untraceable means of breaking into anywhere? I'm pretty sure there are means for stopping Portkey travel, otherwise it would be in greater use, and all those other protections placed on areas would be worthless.
Dumbledore did not have any idea that the Triwizard Cup had been turned into a portkey until Harry mentioned it and Crouch Jr. confessed to it. Fudge didn't even believe that it had been done. Crouch Jr. did that without authorization and without anyone knowing he had done so. He volunteered to take the Cup into the maze so he could turn it into a portkey without anyone realizing what he had done. Dumbledore did lift the anti-apparition jinx within the Great Hall in HBP for apparition lessons, but that was limited to that one room. They would not have been able to apparate to any other location within the castle or on the grounds - nor would they have been able to apparate away from Hogwarts to another location like Hogsmeade or Grimmauld Place. The portkey that Crouch Jr. made was not limited and it took Harry far away from Hogwarts to Little Hangleton. If it were possible to block portkeys the same way that apparition could be blocked, that would also have been done for the tournament - a temporary lifting that was limited to a specific area. That's not what we are shown. We are shown an unauthorized portkey that was created without Dumbledore or the Ministry being aware of it and was not limited in any way.

The first portkey that Harry saw Dumbledore make was while he was still headmaster, but this was not to allow travel within Hogwarts - it was to allow Harry and the Weasley kids to get away from Hogwarts quickly without Umbridge realizing it. And Hermione tells them later that Umbridge was livid that they had disappeared right under her nose - she didn't know how Dumbledore managed that so the Ministry did not detect that portkey either. But Dumbledore was not Headmaster of Hogwarts when he made the second portkey that took Harry from the Ministry to the Headmaster's office in OOTP - he had not yet been reinstated. Umbridge was still the Headmistress at that time. Dumbledore had no authority to make a portkey or change/lift any enchantments at Hogwarts and he did not have permission to make a portkey, but the only reason Fudge knew he had done it was because he was standing there watching while he did. And Dumbledore did that at the Ministry so he could not have done anything to remove any enchantments at Hogwarts regardless. And Harry arrived at Hogwarts safe and sound. The anti-apparition jinx prevented people from apparating within Hogwarts grounds, but it did not block portkeys.

We also see in DH that portkeys work within the boundaries of the Burrow even though they could not apparate within the boundaries of the Burrow. The Order made seven unauthorized portkeys to use that night - none of which were detected by the Ministry and none of which were hindered in any way by the anti-apparition jinx.

I would agree that this is an inconsistency in the writing - and I'm not entirely sure if Jo realized just how inconsistent all that is. On the one hand, there is talk of portkeys having to be authorized and Lupin makes a comment about how they would get into trouble if they made an unauthorized portkey when they pick Harry up in OOTP. On the other hand, all the examples of portkeys being used show that this was not a law that the Ministry could enforce because portkeys could not be detected, tracked, or blocked. The Ministry would have to actually catch someone in the act of creating an unauthorized portkey in order to prove that they had done so and punish them for it.

It does make you wonder why the bad guys didn't use portkeys more often, but then there are a lot of questions like that throughout the series. For example, the Death Eaters could have used house-elves to get inside Hogwarts any time they wanted to as well. Voldemort could have ordered Narcissa and Bellatrix to ask Kreacher to bring Harry to him instead of using an elaborate scheme to lure Harry to the Ministry with a false vision. For that matter, Voldemort could have "borrowed" a house-elf from any of the Death Eaters who had one to get inside #4 Privet Dr. and bring Harry directly to him - Dobby was able to get in after all. In OOTP, Voldemort could have used polyjuice potion to impersonate a Ministry employee and strolled right into the Ministry to get the prophecy himself without anyone being aware it was him. There are a lot of these little inconsistencies throughout the series - some cause problems with the story in that they create plot holes - others are more easily explained.


__________________

Reform must come from within, not from without. ~ James Cardinal Gibbons

"So, if people want information on my characters, then they have to accept that I'm going to give them the information on the characters. And if they don't like it, that's the nature of fiction. You have to accept someone else's world because they made that world, so they probably know a little better than you do what goes on there." ~ J.K. Rowling


All posts are my opinions and interpretations based on reading the Harry Potter books and interviews with J.K. Rowling.

  #11  
Old October 9th, 2010, 1:50 pm
GingerCat1  Undisclosed.gif GingerCat1 is offline
Seventh Year
 
Joined: 3527 days
Posts: 1,656
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

One thing that i have always felt was a inconsistency was Dumbledore and his ability to read people.

In some circumstances he doesn't seen able as he didn't know that Voldemort was living in the back of Quirrell's head and worse he didn't know that Mad Eye was actually a Death Eater posed as Mad Eye but then in DH's Dumbledore seems to be able to practically predict the future with the clues he gave the trio especially with him giving Ron the Deluminator.

Dumbledore barely knew Ron and yet somehow he was able to predict that Ron would need the Deluminator and yet he knew Mad Eye very well and it took him the better part of 9 months to figure out that he was a imposter.


  #12  
Old October 9th, 2010, 3:10 pm
fcnina  Female.gif fcnina is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3321 days
Location: Denmark - Copenhagen
Posts: 3
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

Hey all.

Great site just fund it.

Well I hope you can help me with a question that has been bothering me for quite a while.

I LOVE the books despise all its plot holes and inconsistencies but there is something that seriously bugs me.

Harry is the 7th horcrux.
There are not many things that can finish or kill a horcrux right.?
There are Fiendfyre(cursed fire), Basilisk venom and the sword of Griffendor and perhaps some more.

My question is WHY is the horcrux in Harry not destroyed when the Basilisk “bites” him in TCOS? And why can other things hurt Harry when all other horcruxes can’t be hurt by anything other than the things that can kill it?

It could be that it was because he lives and is not a thing but Nagini is also alive and can only be harmed by the sword?

And why is Voldemort able to kill Harry with a killing curse if he is still a horcrux? Then Couldn’t Harry just kill Nagini with one?


Please help me to understand?

Nina


  #13  
Old October 9th, 2010, 3:57 pm
OldMotherCrow's Avatar
OldMotherCrow  Female.gif OldMotherCrow is offline
Sixth Year
 
Joined: 4039 days
Location: Here. I'm pretty sure of it.
Posts: 1,297
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

Quote:
Originally Posted by GingerCat1 View Post
One thing that i have always felt was a inconsistency was Dumbledore and his ability to read people.

In some circumstances he doesn't seen able as he didn't know that Voldemort was living in the back of Quirrell's head and worse he didn't know that Mad Eye was actually a Death Eater posed as Mad Eye but then in DH's Dumbledore seems to be able to practically predict the future with the clues he gave the trio especially with him giving Ron the Deluminator.

Dumbledore barely knew Ron and yet somehow he was able to predict that Ron would need the Deluminator and yet he knew Mad Eye very well and it took him the better part of 9 months to figure out that he was a imposter.
I don't know. Maybe Dumbledore was good at general human nature but poor at reading individuals? I don't think Dumbledore was really close to anyone, so I don't think Moody was a close friend. I also don't think Dumbledore could have known that Ron would leave Harry-- but I think he could have predicted that they might get split up somehow, and because they were supposed to be staying hidden it might be hard for them to get back together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fcnina
Harry is the 7th horcrux.
There are not many things that can finish or kill a horcrux right.?
There are Fiendfyre(cursed fire), Basilisk venom and the sword of Griffendor and perhaps some more.

My question is WHY is the horcrux in Harry not destroyed when the Basilisk “bites” him in TCOS? And why can other things hurt Harry when all other horcruxes can’t be hurt by anything other than the things that can kill it?
I think it is because Harry didn't die; Fawkes healed Harry before the poison finished its work. If Harry had died, the Horcrux container (Harry) would have counted as destroyed, and so the piece of Voldemort's soul in Harry would have been destroyed, too.

Quote:
And why is Voldemort able to kill Harry with a killing curse if he is still a horcrux? Then Couldn’t Harry just kill Nagini with one?
It is probable that Nagini could have been killed with a killing curse. My guess is that the magic bubble Voldemort put around Nagini acted like a solid barrier, and we saw in the books that something solid could block a killing curse (like the headless statue in OotP). Before the bubble was put on her I imagine that she was vulnerable to a killing curse just like any other living being.


__________________
".... You've chosen your way, I've chosen mine."
I love Lily because she chooses a path to match her convictions, and chooses to live her life fighting for what is right. It is our choices that show who we truly are.

"UNTIL THE VERY END"
-- JK Rowling to Harry Potter fans at the beginning of Deathly Hallows, and James Potter to his son at the end of Deathly Hallows.
  #14  
Old October 9th, 2010, 4:16 pm
HPitty23  Female.gif HPitty23 is offline
Second Year
 
Joined: 3320 days
Location: Down the rabbit hole...
Age: 25
Posts: 135
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

I bet this has already been mentioned here, but what has always bugged me was the threstrals. Why couldn't Harry see them in the fourth book, on the way back to the Hogsmeade station? It was right after Cedric was killed. Was it simply because Harry was in shock, or JK Rowling didn't want to introduce something as big as a new creature into the book at that late a time?


  #15  
Old October 9th, 2010, 4:37 pm
fcnina  Female.gif fcnina is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3321 days
Location: Denmark - Copenhagen
Posts: 3
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

Quote:
Originally Posted by HPitty23 View Post
I bet this has already been mentioned here, but what has always bugged me was the threstrals. Why couldn't Harry see them in the fourth book, on the way back to the Hogsmeade station? It was right after Cedric was killed. Was it simply because Harry was in shock, or JK Rowling didn't want to introduce something as big as a new creature into the book at that late a time?
I have thought about that to. And Harry did also watch Lilly die even if he was a baby he has seen death.?

I think it is because Harry didn't die; Fawkes healed Harry before the poison finished its work. If Harry had died, the Horcrux container (Harry) would have counted as destroyed, and so the piece of Voldemort's soul in Harry would have been destroyed, too.

Thanks you are probably right



It is probable that Nagini could have been killed with a killing curse. My guess is that the magic bubble Voldemort put around Nagini acted like a solid barrier, and we saw in the books that something solid could block a killing curse (like the headless statue in OotP). Before the bubble was put on her I imagine that she was vulnerable to a killing curse just like any other living being.[/quote]

Yes that would explane it but then i wasnt a very good idea of Voldemort to make living horcruxes..


  #16  
Old October 9th, 2010, 5:02 pm
gabriele87  Undisclosed.gif gabriele87 is offline
Second Year
 
Joined: 3444 days
Posts: 196
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

Rowling has commented on Harry not seeing the threstrals at the end of GOF. I'm not going to dig up her old quote, but she said something along the lines of this: Harry needed more time to fully comprehend and accept the death of Cedric, so he did not see the threstrals right away.

I'm inclined to believe she didn't want to introduce the threstrals at the end of the book, or that they were a late invention in her mind. Who knows.


  #17  
Old October 9th, 2010, 6:24 pm
Alastor's Avatar
Alastor  Male.gif Alastor is offline
Keeper of the Mignon Eggs
 
Joined: 6112 days
Posts: 6,506
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

Frequently Asked Harry Potter Questions, post #4


__________________



  #18  
Old October 9th, 2010, 8:14 pm
CurseCruciatus  Female.gif CurseCruciatus is offline
Second Year
 
Joined: 3532 days
Posts: 231
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

Quote:
Originally Posted by fcnina View Post
Harry is the 7th horcrux.
There are not many things that can finish or kill a horcrux right.?
There are Fiendfyre(cursed fire), Basilisk venom and the sword of Griffendor and perhaps some more.

My question is WHY is the horcrux in Harry not destroyed when the Basilisk “bites” him in TCOS? And why can other things hurt Harry when all other horcruxes can’t be hurt by anything other than the things that can kill it?

It could be that it was because he lives and is not a thing but Nagini is also alive and can only be harmed by the sword?

And why is Voldemort able to kill Harry with a killing curse if he is still a horcrux? Then Couldn’t Harry just kill Nagini with one?
Dumbledore noted that it's unusual to create horcruxes out of living things and they might not necessarily work the same way. Since living things are mortal, the life of the horcrux might depend on the life of the mortal that is the horcrux. I don't think that Nagini had to be killed by the sword of Gryffindor. Harry just never got the chance to since Nagini was in a protective bubble, and when Neville took the task up, the sword of Gryffindor was conveniently on hand. If he had the sword and the opportunity to use it, I don't think he would have had to use the killing curse.


__________________
Their daring, nerve, and chivalry set Gryffindors apart.
"I solemnly swear that I'm up to no good."

Proud supporter of: HWRKDJCKQ. I have yet to figure out what that means.
  #19  
Old October 9th, 2010, 9:02 pm
storyteller's Avatar
storyteller  Female.gif storyteller is offline
[user title]
 
Joined: 5281 days
Location: Telling stories in the Shack
Age: 47
Posts: 3,236
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyraLovegood View Post
She was dismissed as a teacher, but remained at the castle. As far as I know, her movement about the castle and grounds were not restricted when Firenze took over her classes.

Dumbledore and McGonagall defended Trelawney's right to remain at Hogwarts and call it her home. It may very well be that she discovered the RoR while Firenze was teaching her classes, especially if she was looking for a place to hide her discomfiture (and her empty bottles) from the Inquisitorial Squad.

She would have had to find it available to her only when the DA was not meeting, though.
I would think that after she was dismissed that she would hide even more up in her tower and that she probably found the room one night walking back and forth not remembering where she was going because she was so drunk.


__________________
  #20  
Old October 10th, 2010, 12:04 am
snapes_witch's Avatar
snapes_witch  Female.gif snapes_witch is offline
Hogwarts Graduate
 
Joined: 5137 days
Location: afternoon tea at Granny's
Posts: 2,973
Re: Plot holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions v3

Quote:
Originally Posted by fcnina View Post
I have thought about that to. And Harry did also watch Lilly die even if he was a baby he has seen death.?
Harry was in his cot and probably didn't actually see his mum die, besides which he would have been too young to understand what was going on.


__________________

SEVERUS SNAPE
HEADMASTER
HOGWARTS SCHOOL OF WITCHCRAFT AND WIZARDRY
1997-98

REQUIESCAT IN PACE
9 JANUARY, 1960 - 2 MAY, 1998
 
Go Back  Chamber of Secrets > Forum Archives > Post DH References

Bookmarks

Tags
grimmauld place, maurauder's map


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 9:37 pm.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Original content is Copyright © MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved.
Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright © its respective owners.