Hey would anybody agree with me that Harry Potter is holey?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



tooa/presence
I think there are plot holes in Harry Potter. Does anybody agree?

siriuswriter
Simply put - no.

Surreal_44
I think there are some possible contradictions or areas that never got fully explained (imperious curse, for one), but I don't think they are huge, huge plot holes.

And perhaps what is unknown now shall be revealed in this Harry Potter encyclopedia JKR has been talking about.

tooa/presence
well here is a small example. she wrote that harry had the "real" invisible cloak that was impenetrable, truly invisible and what not, yet mad eye could see them through it. there are others too but does anyone have an explanation for that

Barker
Ask her, why would we know?

siriuswriter
Originally posted by tooa/presence
well here is a small example. she wrote that harry had the "real" invisible cloak that was impenetrable, truly invisible and what not, yet mad eye could see them through it. there are others too but does anyone have an explanation for that

The invisibility cloak was impetrenable to things like spells, not things like Mad Eye Moody's eye.

Morton Ford
Hmmm... Harrys invincibility cloak should be immune to magic,, but Malfoy broke its defense with a stunningspell in Harry Potter 5.

Dresta
Originally posted by Surreal_44
I think there are some possible contradictions or areas that never got fully explained (imperious curse, for one), but I don't think they are huge, huge plot holes.

And perhaps what is unknown now shall be revealed in this Harry Potter encyclopedia JKR has been talking about.
What are the contradictions on the imperious curse?

Surio
Of course there are minor plot holes in Harry Potter. Name me a fantasy series without any.

Lana
I don't recall any contradictions with the Imperius Curse.

However, there was a rather huge one with the Fidelius Charm - in earlier books it was explained that even if the Secret-Keeper died, the charm was still in place. In DH though they say that since Dumbledore (Secret-Keeper for Grimmauld Place) died, everyone who knew of it became a Secret-Keeper which weakened the charm.

willRules
Originally posted by Lana
I don't recall any contradictions with the Imperius Curse.

However, there was a rather huge one with the Fidelius Charm - in earlier books it was explained that even if the Secret-Keeper died, the charm was still in place. In DH though they say that since Dumbledore (Secret-Keeper for Grimmauld Place) died, everyone who knew of it became a Secret-Keeper which weakened the charm.

I don't think the charm was weakened in terms of magic, but the fact that there were numerous secret keepers who could give away it's location (e.g. Snape) thereby defeating the whole point of the charm's existence yes

Lana
Originally posted by willRules
I don't think the charm was weakened in terms of magic, but the fact that there were numerous secret keepers who could give away it's location (e.g. Snape) thereby defeating the whole point of the charm's existence yes

There wasn't numerous Secret-Keepers, though. There was only one - Dumbledore. Knowing where something or someone protected by the Fidelius Charm is doesn't make you a Secret-Keeper.

willRules
Originally posted by Lana
There wasn't numerous Secret-Keepers, though. There was only one - Dumbledore. Knowing where something or someone protected by the Fidelius Charm is doesn't make you a Secret-Keeper.

I meant after Dumbledore's death yes

celestialdemon
Wasn't Dumbledore also able to see through the cloak when he found Harry looking at the mirror? Also, Snape seemed to sense Harry closed to him when he was confronting Quirrel in Sorcerer's Stone.

One thing I didn't like was Ollivander's explanation as to why Harry's wand acted on it's own against Voldemort. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.

Lana
Originally posted by willRules
I meant after Dumbledore's death yes

Gah. Yes. I know.

However, it's still missing the point that in previous books it was said that it doesn't work that way (which I said already).

willRules
oh right my mistake embarrasment

Lana
Originally posted by celestialdemon
Wasn't Dumbledore also able to see through the cloak when he found Harry looking at the mirror? Also, Snape seemed to sense Harry closed to him when he was confronting Quirrel in Sorcerer's Stone.

One thing I didn't like was Ollivander's explanation as to why Harry's wand acted on it's own against Voldemort. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.

Harry wasn't wearing the cloak when he was looking at the mirror, he had taken it off.

And I don't think turning invisible will make all hints of your presence completely disappear. Otherwise they wouldn't have to worry about not making noise or bumping into people.

siriuswriter
JK Rowling said that Dumbledore knew Harry was there by using the same "human reveal" spell that Hermione used in book 7.

tooa/presence
Well okay here's the biggest contradiction I think. You know how the outer part of the horcrux has to die or be broken for the horcrux to be destroyed. Well Harry didn't really die so the horcrux shouldn't have been destroyed. And besides Voldemort shouldn't have even been able to kill Harry even if Harry was accepting death because he had the blood protection off harry's mom in him which Dumbledore said as long as it was in Voldemort, Harry couldn't be killed by him. But the thing is that protection would and should have gone away after Harry's 17th birthday like it did with Harry.

Dresta
Originally posted by tooa/presence
Well okay here's the biggest contradiction I think. You know how the outer part of the horcrux has to die or be broken for the horcrux to be destroyed. Well Harry didn't really die so the horcrux shouldn't have been destroyed. And besides Voldemort shouldn't have even been able to kill Harry even if Harry was accepting death because he had the blood protection off harry's mom in him which Dumbledore said as long as it was in Voldemort, Harry couldn't be killed by him. But the thing is that protection would and should have gone away after Harry's 17th birthday like it did with Harry.
No, Voldemort couldn't kill harry not due to the protecion given to him by his mother's sacrifice, but because Voldemort had the same blood as Harry's running through his body, therefore there was something tieing Harry to the living world. So as long as Voldemort was still alvie Harry could not die.

willRules
which I had guessed! eek!

Originally posted by willRules
Ok I apologise if this thread has already been created but I couldn't find it in the search.......

Ok we know in book 4 when Harry tells Dumbledore that Voldermort got over the problem of his Mum's sacrifice by returning by using Harry's blood. When Harry tells Dumbledore this he has a gleam of triumph in his eyes for a split second. What's this all about? Rowling said it would be important to book 7. This thread is for your theories on the gleam of triumph and to ask you guys what you think of my theory.

My Theory.

Dumbledore seems happy that Voldermort overcame this barrier, but why? If Dumbledore was one of the Order why would he be happy about this barrier being broken down? Unless it did the exact opposite........

My theory is that Lily Potter's Sacrifice is a deep magic (Dumbledore says in book 1 some people call it love) which is in Harry's blood. When Voldemort was returned to power Harry's blood was used so it also resides in Voldemort. But what if it didn't break down the barrier, just create a new one?

Think about it, the very spell that was in Harry, protecting him from Voldemort is now also in Voldemort. The only thing that was stopping voldemort from killing Harry was that spell which is now inside Voldemort. Voldemort can't kill Harry because his blood is full of the very thing protecting Harry, Lily Potter's love eek! That's why I think Dumbledore was so happy yes It's a long stretch but it makes sense yes


Any thoughts or opinions?

Spidervlad
Yeah I'm sure there are plot holes. I mean, if Harry could have shot 3 stunning spells at Fenrir using 3 wands, then why couldn't he just taken like 3 wands in each hand and shot 6 stunning spells at the same time O_o I mean anyone could've done that and that would amplify the power of the spell by alot. Why didn't Voldemort do that? Seriously, make like 5 killing curses at the same time, sounds cool.

Lana
Originally posted by willRules
which I had guessed! eek!

You know what I think is the stupidest thing about all of that?

The number of people I've seen complaining that "Dumbledore's 'gleam of triumph' was never explained!".

Yes it was you twits, you just actually have to have some reading comprehension.

Originally posted by Spidervlad
Yeah I'm sure there are plot holes. I mean, if Harry could have shot 3 stunning spells at Fenrir using 3 wands, then why couldn't he just taken like 3 wands in each hand and shot 6 stunning spells at the same time O_o I mean anyone could've done that and that would amplify the power of the spell by alot. Why didn't Voldemort do that? Seriously, make like 5 killing curses at the same time, sounds cool.

*sigh*

Because, as was a explained as a fairly large plot point in the book, a wand will not work properly for the one using it unless the wand has chosent that person - either if it belongs to them originally, or they have 'won' it from the previous owner.

Spidervlad
He used three of the goddamn wands to shoot 3 stunning spells. That means they work for him. So he just uses the wands at the same time.

Voldemort killed ALOT of people, therefore he "defeats" the user and is now the master of the wand. Added to that, before he became the master of the Elder Wand, he could still use it like a normal wand. So he could've just used his older wand and this wand for double the power.

willRules
Originally posted by Lana
You know what I think is the stupidest thing about all of that?

The number of people I've seen complaining that "Dumbledore's 'gleam of triumph' was never explained!".

Yes it was you twits, you just actually have to have some reading comprehension.

lol yes

Lana
Originally posted by Spidervlad
He used three of the goddamn wands to shoot 3 stunning spells. That means they work for him. So he just uses the wands at the same time.

Voldemort killed ALOT of people, therefore he "defeats" the user and is now the master of the wand. Added to that, before he became the master of the Elder Wand, he could still use it like a normal wand. So he could've just used his older wand and this wand for double the power.

Voldemort never became the master of the Elder Wand. Another plot point you apparently missed.

Spidervlad
Originally posted by Lana
Voldemort never became the master of the Elder Wand. Another plot point you apparently missed.

And you failed to answer my question, instead rather trying to cover it up by pointing at my 'mistakes.'

Voldemort was close to mastering it, but his arrogance overlooked the very thing that was most important, which is that Draco was the true master of the hallows, and since Harry had 'won' Draco's wand, Harry was now the true owner of the Elder Wand.
Happy?

Lana
Originally posted by Spidervlad
And you failed to answer my question, instead rather trying to cover it up by pointing at my 'mistakes.'

Voldemort was close to mastering it, but his arrogance overlooked the very thing that was most important, which is that Draco was the true master of the hallows, and since Harry had 'won' Draco's wand, Harry was now the true owner of the Elder Wand.
Happy?

Right, okay, so if you're in the middle of a fight for your life, are you going to go around wasting time picking up the wands of people you've defeated, or are you just going to keep fighting as long as you possibly can?

Come on now.

Spidervlad
Not just Harry Potter, anyone really. Why can't they use 2 wands instead of one? It's double the power, isn't it?

Lana
My point still stands. It's a frenetic, dangerous battle. No one in their right mind would bother wasting time grabbing an extra wand that may or may not work for them.

And I don't think spells work that way. A lot of the power comes from the person themselves. Like, Neville could have a dozen wands at once but it's not going to make him any better at Transfiguration...

Spidervlad
Yeah, but back at the time when people get their wands. Why not ask for two O_o

If you know how to cast a stunning spells then you'll cast 12 stunning spells with 12 wands. I mean thats what Harry did with 3 wands.

tooa/presence
Originally posted by Dresta
No, Voldemort couldn't kill harry not due to the protecion given to him by his mother's sacrifice, but because Voldemort had the same blood as Harry's running through his body, therefore there was something tieing Harry to the living world. So as long as Voldemort was still alvie Harry could not die.

His mother's sacrifice wore off when Harry turned 17. Therefore, Voldemort should have been able to kill him.

Lana
Originally posted by tooa/presence
His mother's sacrifice wore off when Harry turned 17. Therefore, Voldemort should have been able to kill him.

Did you actually read his reply? Or the book, for that matter?

It had nothing to do with Lily's sacrifice.

Voldemort had, in GoF, taken Harry's blood. This originally broke part of the charm of Lily's sacrifice, in that Voldemort could touch Harry now.

But because Voldemort did this, as long as Voldemort was alive Harry couldn't die. Harry's blood being in Voldemort's body tied him to life.

It's really NOT that hard to understand. I don't know why people can't get it.

tooa/presence
Originally posted by Lana
Did you actually read his reply? Or the book, for that matter?

It had nothing to do with Lily's sacrifice.

Voldemort had, in GoF, taken Harry's blood. This originally broke part of the charm of Lily's sacrifice, in that Voldemort could touch Harry now.

But because Voldemort did this, as long as Voldemort was alive Harry couldn't die. Harry's blood being in Voldemort's body tied him to life.

It's really NOT that hard to understand. I don't know why people can't get it.

Then because Harry didn't die then the horcrux shouldn't have because it said you had to destroy the outer part in order to destroy the horcrux.

§P0oONY
Originally posted by Lana
Did you actually read his reply? Or the book, for that matter?

It had nothing to do with Lily's sacrifice.

Voldemort had, in GoF, taken Harry's blood. This originally broke part of the charm of Lily's sacrifice, in that Voldemort could touch Harry now.

But because Voldemort did this, as long as Voldemort was alive Harry couldn't die. Harry's blood being in Voldemort's body tied him to life.

It's really NOT that hard to understand. I don't know why people can't get it. I get it.. eek!


stick out tongue

exanda kane
Originally posted by Spidervlad
Not just Harry Potter, anyone really. Why can't they use 2 wands instead of one? It's double the power, isn't it?

Considering Rowling wrote with the medieval language of spiritual alchemy, taking excerpts from age old portrayals of wizards, why should they use two wands? What mythical wizard or witch used two wands? It's not Star Wars y'know.

Spidervlad
Originally posted by exanda kane
Considering Rowling wrote with the medieval language of spiritual alchemy, taking excerpts from age old portrayals of wizards, why should they use two wands? What mythical wizard or witch used two wands? It's not Star Wars y'know.

But she clearly stated that it was possible. And someone like Voldemort, who clearly wanted more and more power, could've used two wands instead of one since it's possible. She shouldn't have made it possible to use more than one wand, because it doesn't really make sense.

exanda kane
Put it into the dramatic context and it does make sense. Take it out there and you will find many such problems, but those problems simply undermine the spirit of the books.

Lana

§P0oONY
Originally posted by Spidervlad
But she clearly stated that it was possible. And someone like Voldemort, who clearly wanted more and more power, could've used two wands instead of one since it's possible. She shouldn't have made it possible to use more than one wand, because it doesn't really make sense. If a wand dictated the power why not just give a squib a powerful wand? The wizard uses their power through the wand, the wand itself doesn't give power (unless it's the Elder Wand) therefor having 2 wands is not really beneficial.

Lana

Strangelove
Originally posted by Lana
I don't recall any contradictions with the Imperius Curse.

However, there was a rather huge one with the Fidelius Charm - in earlier books it was explained that even if the Secret-Keeper died, the charm was still in place. In DH though they say that since Dumbledore (Secret-Keeper for Grimmauld Place) died, everyone who knew of it became a Secret-Keeper which weakened the charm. Well if the original Secret-Keeper died, don't you think the charm would be weakened? Made sense to me srug

Lana
Originally posted by Strangelove
Well if the original Secret-Keeper died, don't you think the charm would be weakened? Made sense to me srug

No, it doesn't make any sense at all. Dead or not, the Secret-Keeper is still the Secret-Keeper. It just means that no one else would be able to reveal the secret.

Or at least that's how it always seemed to be, anyway.

Spidervlad
Originally posted by Lana
And even if multiple wands means being able to fire multiple spells...it'd seem to me that since the power is being channeled through three sources, each individual spell would be weaker than one single one. Also there's the fact that you still actually have to aim where you want to hit. Spells and curses don't have homing devices on them, hence why people are able to miss getting hit and stuff.

So why did Harry use 3 wands at a time on Fenrir... Whats the point if it's easier to point with 1? And it clearly stated that Fenrir was soared over into the air by the triple spell. Frankly, we haven't ever seen a single stunning spell from a single wand do that.

tooa/presence
Originally posted by Lana
Did you actually read his reply? Or the book, for that matter?

It had nothing to do with Lily's sacrifice.

Voldemort had, in GoF, taken Harry's blood. This originally broke part of the charm of Lily's sacrifice, in that Voldemort could touch Harry now.

But because Voldemort did this, as long as Voldemort was alive Harry couldn't die. Harry's blood being in Voldemort's body tied him to life.

It's really NOT that hard to understand. I don't know why people can't get it.

oh okay that makes sense.

And yes I did read the book you don't have to be rude about it. I just didn't take the time to re-read the first 6 books so I forgot a lot of the details.

Lana
Originally posted by Spidervlad
So why did Harry use 3 wands at a time on Fenrir... Whats the point if it's easier to point with 1? And it clearly stated that Fenrir was soared over into the air by the triple spell. Frankly, we haven't ever seen a single stunning spell from a single wand do that.

Actually I'm pretty sure we have.

Originally posted by tooa/presence
oh okay that makes sense.

And yes I did read the book you don't have to be rude about it. I just didn't take the time to re-read the first 6 books so I forgot a lot of the details.

Well, you didn't need to remember anything from the first six books to understand that part. It was explained very clearly.

§P0oONY
Originally posted by Lana
Actually I'm pretty sure we have.



Well, you didn't need to remember anything from the first six books to understand that part. It was explained very clearly. Well, the 4th book does explain that Lily's sacrifice has no effect anymore. But it is true that it's pretty obvious from just the 7th.

Dresta

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.