or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › The Mindful Home › Arts & Crafts › Books, Music, and Media › Harry potter... do you ever wonder???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Harry potter... do you ever wonder??? - Page 2

post #21 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daffodil View Post
(And I never was satisfied with the explanation that Voldemort couldn't kill Harry as a baby because his mother loved him and was willing to die for him. It's not as if Harry is the first person in history who ever had someone willing to die to protect him.)
This is my single biggest gripe with the Harry Potter books (and, although ds1 and I both enjoy them, I have many!). I'm quite certain that during Voldemort's first reign of terror alone, there were many people who willingly died to protect someone. It makes no sense that this protected Harry, but nobody else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1littlebit View Post
also in the first book it said that james and lily were head boy and girl... but later they talk about how much trouble he got in with sirius and how lupin was made a prefect in hope that he could keep the in line.
I find the back characterization of James Potter absolutely ridiculous. Everybody thinks he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but all the internal evidence suggests that he was a...prat. He was a troublmaker, and a bully. I have to assume that he improved a lot in his last year or so, and after he finished at Hogwarts, but the whole "James Potter was such a wonderful person" thing doens't mesh at all with the way he was actually portrayed, both in the penseive, and by his own friends.

Quote:
o and why is it ok that dumbledore hire craptastic teachers just b/c they are somehow connected to voldemort? trelawny and snape are both terrible teachers.. and on a similar note... i love hagrid but he's not exactly a good teacher yk? i would think the quality of the teaching should come first... maybe he should have started a nice closed community for everyone he wanted to baby sit but couldn't teach.
I was really disappointed with the direction Rowling took Hagrid after he became a teacher. He started off as a character I really liked, even though some students thought he was a buffoon. By the end of the series, he pretty much was a buffoon.

Oh - and my other pet peeve is about Harry and the Cruciatus curse. I found the fact that cast an unforgivable curse, after everything he'd been through and done, solely because someone disrespected Professer McGonagall, really distasteful. Sure - I get that he was mad, but...this was torture, and had been condemned by the entire wizarding community. Talk about blurring the lines between the good guys and the bad guys. "Ooohh...you spit on someone I respect, so I'm going to cast an unforgivable curse on you". Wow...just wow.
post #22 of 255
Without pulling out any of the books, I don't understand:

What was the Malfoy's role after the Battle at Hogwarts, what kind of penance did they do to be just accepted back into society? Were any other death eaters allowed back in versus going to Azkaban? Did Narcissa get taken away? Repent? (Lucius? I can't remember where he was in the end)

What happened to the however many death eaters were left after Voldemort died? They weren't ALL there were they? Did they all either give up and go to/back to Azkaban or fight to the death?

How/when did Dumbledore expect to die? Clearly not when he did, so what did he *think* would happen?
post #23 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
This is my single biggest gripe with the Harry Potter books (and, although ds1 and I both enjoy them, I have many!). I'm quite certain that during Voldemort's first reign of terror alone, there were many people who willingly died to protect someone. It makes no sense that this protected Harry, but nobody else.
I've always thought that there was more to it, like a *mother's* direct protection had some special power. I don't think most of the people killed, while they may have had someone who would have willingly died to protect them, had their mother's direct protection, right there with them.


I find the back characterization of James Potter absolutely ridiculous. Everybody thinks he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but all the internal evidence suggests that he was a...prat. He was a troublmaker, and a bully. I have to assume that he improved a lot in his last year or so, and after he finished at Hogwarts, but the whole "James Potter was such a wonderful person" thing doens't mesh at all with the way he was actually portrayed, both in the penseive, and by his own friends.

I totally agree.

I was really disappointed with the direction Rowling took Hagrid after he became a teacher. He started off as a character I really liked, even though some students thought he was a buffoon. By the end of the series, he pretty much was a buffoon.

I agree on this too.

Oh - and my other pet peeve is about Harry and the Cruciatus curse. I found the fact that cast an unforgivable curse, after everything he'd been through and done, solely because someone disrespected Professer McGonagall, really distasteful. Sure - I get that he was mad, but...this was torture, and had been condemned by the entire wizarding community. Talk about blurring the lines between the good guys and the bad guys. "Ooohh...you spit on someone I respect, so I'm going to cast an unforgivable curse on you". Wow...just wow.[/QUOTE]

And, yup. Won't attack Stan Shunpike, who is about to kill him, but better not be rude to Minerva. Maybe he has a student crush on his schoolmarm?
post #24 of 255
I wonder about this same stuff!

I'm also a huge fan of Severus and have had to go to fan fiction for a better, alternate ending. Because JK Rowling was just cruel to the man! After everything he went through, too.

Here is what I don't get: how could Dumbledore, who is portrayed as fairly omniscient and powerful, NOT know that Voldemort was in that turban on the professor's head? I mean, really! Doesn't Hogwarts have better security?

Same with Mad Eye Moody - how could he not have known the guy wasn't him? Shouldn't they have set up some kind of better code word or security system?

I realize there would be no plot without these elements, but it just seemed a weak point to me in terms of believability.

I, too, don't get why they kept Harry in the dark. Surely they realized that was more dangerous after first year!

And, if Hermione, at age 17, modified her parent's memories, what did she do with their dental practice and home (mortgage, bills, insurance, etc.) At age 17 she was a minor in the muggle world ... so how did that work out?

And why in the world are Ron and Hermione a couple? They are so incompatible intellectually!
post #25 of 255
Oh - and one other thing. Where the heck is Veritaserum through the whole first four books? Nobody believes that Harry didn't put his own name in the Goblet of Fire, and there's potentially a huge rift between Durmstrang, Beaubatons and Hogwarts. Everyone thinks Harry's a liar. So...where's the Veritaserum? Where is it when the whole "did Sirius do it?" thing comes up? Sure - maybe it was a new development between the killing of the Potters and the time span of the books...but there's no suggestion that it was only a year or two old at the time of Order of the Phoenix, so why wasn't it used on Sirius in Prisoner of Azkaban? I'm about to go to bed, and can't think of the others, but I remember there were several places where the Veritaserum would have made a huge difference...but was never used (oh - Harry's original trial in OotP, about using his magic on the Dementors was one). Then, it was suddenly pulled out to deal with a bunch of teenagers??
post #26 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by EviesMom View Post
How/when did Dumbledore expect to die? Clearly not when he did, so what did he *think* would happen?
I don't think he had a definite plan; I think he was just waiting for the time when it seemed necessary, when he would tell Snape to act the part of the Death Eater and kill him publicly. I think after he and Harry visited the cave and drinking that potion left him in such bad shape, he had decided it was time, and that was why he wanted Harry to fetch Snape. But even before that evening, I imagine he thought it would be soon.
post #27 of 255
Another thing that bothers me is the plot of Goblet of Fire. Voldemort comes up with this elaborate plan of entering Harry in the Tri-Wizard Tournament and spending the whole year trying to help him win, just to set up a situation where he will hopefully grab a portkey and be taken to where Voldemort is waiting for him?! There are so many simpler, quicker ways of getting him to grab a portkey that are much likelier to work. Like, in the first week of school the fake Moody leaves something interesting-looking on Harry's bed, or invites him to go for a walk and says, "Hey, what's that on the ground?" and WHOOSH! Harry's in the graveyard.

Maybe the magical protection at Hogwarts makes it impossible to set up unauthorized portkeys on the grounds. But the fake Moody should have been able to lure Harry to a portkey in Hogsmeade somehow.
post #28 of 255
Thread Starter 
omg i so agree about veritaserum. why wouldn't they just use that to ask about harry entering his name.... and why wouldn't fudge use that in the fifth book if he is so sure that harry is a lying looney tune?

and yeah i think if dumbledore is as bright as he is supposed to be he should have noticed mad eye wasn't mad eye. but she isn't great with continuity... she describes the characters personalities and such but then doesn't reinforce that with their actions unless it happens to work with the plot. half the time dumbledore is brilliant and half the time he is sort of oblivious.. i mean pick on for goodness sake. same with sirius... he apparently loves harry like a son and all that except for when he gets all pissy b/c he is not just like james. ummm james had parents and family and all that... so he had the luxury to take risks... harry has no family but sirius ... it makes sense that he wouldn't want sirius to die or go to azkaban yk??

also i think it was ridiculous that dumbledore never told harry about the prophecy until the end after sirius died. the kid was dreaming about the department of mysteries for goodness sake... and he knew voldemort would try and lure him there, he knew harry would take the bait.. and yet did not tell him.

btw this is one of those times cell phones would have been useful... ooo and this really bugs me... he doesn't remember the stupid mirror till after sirius is dead... he could have saved himself the trouble of sneaking into umbridge's office... but no... he doesn't even think about it. this is an example of one of the things that bugs me the most about her writing... she writes her characters as sort of dumb.... a lot of the trouble they get into could be avoided if they had a bit more common sense.
post #29 of 255
Thread Starter 
another thing that doesn't make sense is when they talk about not knowing who was acting of their free will and who was under the imperius curse... a good place to start would be to check everyone for the dark mark... only death eaters have the dark mark.

and on that same subject, every body was all shocked that sirius was a death eater... did anyone bother to check for the dark mark? you would think someone who was bests pals with voldemort would have the stupid mark. this would have also been a good time to break out the veritaserum.

and in the fifth book harry sees moodys cloak and immediately recognizes a silvery invisibility cloak... but in the 7th book they say that harry's cloak is one of a kind and other invisibility cloaks are just normal cloaks with disillusionment or vanishing charms on them .... how does that make sense?
post #30 of 255
Not knowing Voldemort had take up residence and the mad-eye wasn't really mad-eye:
Dumbledore is still only human. He said it himself that when he makes mistakes they tend to be bigger ones. And since voldemort hadn't returned yet, it can resonably be expected that no one would consider the need for the same level of security as they had after that.

Triwizard tournement. Likely Voldemort need time to perfect the spell that wormtail would be using to bring him back.

Dumbledore explained his reasons for wanting Harry kept in the dark. They weren't logical, but they were understandable. He didn't want Harry to have to deal with more the nessicary while still young, and it took some time before he realized that it wasn't really up to him.

As for the imperius and the dark mark... Checking won't proove anything. Severus had the dark mark and he was on Harry's side, alternatly Greyback was very much a supporter of Voldemort and didn't have one. So having a dark mark does not = being a voldemort supporter.

Harry's cloak... well it was also discussed in book 7 how the deathly hallows aren't really from death but simply items made by some very powerful wizards. So likely Moody's cloak is likely only different from Harry's in that the magic is not as lasting.

Rowling does a lot of the the things she does because of the human condition. In the real world, Dumbledore would make mistakes, people would change allegence, people would pretend to agree just to stay safe, some people will be held on a pedestal when they don't really deserve it and some people will be villified when they don't deserve it. IMO it would have been harder to really get into if everything in the books were black and white. i.e. Dumbledore is always right and always does what's right or everyone with the dark mark is a deatheater and everyone who doesn't is under the imperius curse.
post #31 of 255
Thread Starter 
but snape had dumbledore to vouch for him... and he was never under the imperius curse... malfoy said he was under the imperious curse i believe... wouldn't veritaserum have been a good idea before chucking sirius in azkaban? did he get a trial? i don't remember... i am sure one of you will though!!
post #32 of 255
I always assumed they didn't use the veritaserum because it was unethical to do so. Like torturing for information you are taking away someone's free will for information.

I do think the whole "your mother died protecting you, it's an old magic, so you didn't die" made little sense and was hooey. I also don't like that what was behind that darn veil was never talked about.

I understand Dumbledore not knowing and why Harry used the curse then but not before- at very least Rowling made human characters with flaws. None of them were perfect and their ethics and view points and attitudes did change (so yeah, basically what Muscian Dad said )
post #33 of 255
Thread Starter 
couldn't they have offered the veritaserum though? i imagine innocent people like sirius, stan shunpike etc would have jumped at the offer yk?
post #34 of 255
Some of these discrepencies aren't, IMO, showing the failings of JKR. They're showing the failings, and the humanity, of the characters themselves.

As far as "James was good...James was a prat; Dumbledore is Omniscient...Dumbledore screwed up big time' Hagrid is a wonderful guy...Hagrid is a big oaf"- this is part of what makes the books beleivable.

Don't forget that this entire series of books are all from Harry's POV, except for a few chapters (such as Spinner's End) that involve other characters without him there. Who on earth would tell a young boy that his dead father was a prat? What young boy would beleive that anyway? Harry wanted/needed to beleive that James was the best thing since sliced bread, even though it wasn't true.

Similarly, Dumbledor wasn't perfect. When he made mistakes, the consequences were more dire than when somebody "lesser" made mistakes. He made a mistake in trusting Snape and Hagrid's teaching abilities. He made a mistake in expecting Snape to teach Occlumency to Harry.

I don't think the Dark Marks showed up at ALL when Voldemort was out of power. I thought they completely faded when he did, then came back when he regained some sort of body. So, in addition to the whole "not all DEs are bad and not all bad guys have the dark mark", I'm not even sure if the Dark Mark was even available when Voldemort was destroyed (either the first time or the second.)

Veritaserum and GoF: Who could have provided Veritaserum but Snape? Would Karkaroff or Maxine have accepted that as "proof" or might they suspect Snape of cheating for the sake of Hogwart's glory?

IMO, some of the "stupidity" of the characters is part of what makes the story more realistic. Harry was only 15 when he forgot about the magic mirrors- what teenager isnt' forgetful at times? He had the dream in the middle of the day, in a classroom, nowhere near the dormitory.
post #35 of 255
Thread Starter 
plus that only makes them tell the truth... i mean there would have to be regulations on questioning people.. but i don't know that its unethical per se... now legilimency would be unethical
post #36 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
This is my single biggest gripe with the Harry Potter books (and, although ds1 and I both enjoy them, I have many!). I'm quite certain that during Voldemort's first reign of terror alone, there were many people who willingly died to protect someone. It makes no sense that this protected Harry, but nobody else.

I always thought that it was because Harry's mom had a *choice*. The only reason that she had a choice was because snape had begged voldy not to kill her. For all those other people, voldemort would have just killed them, not tried to keep them alive.

Also, I though lily had to preform a special charm at the time of her death as well, for this to happen-- that's why they always talk about her being so good at charms.
post #37 of 255
Thread Starter 
sure but he had to wait awhile to plan and sneak into umbridge's office.. how on earth did that not occur to him? sirius had only given it to him a few months before... and he used the knife sirius gave him to get into her office but forgot about the mirror?

i don't think hiring hagrid was a mistake.. i always though hagrid applies and dumbledore didn't have the heart to say no i thought a better plan would be to hire grubbly plank for OWL level classes and Hagrid for NEWT since the big scary ones are more his thing so they would be more age appropriate.
post #38 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by texmati View Post
I always thought that it was because Harry's mom had a *choice*. The only reason that she had a choice was because snape had begged voldy not to kill her. For all those other people, voldemort would have just killed them, not tried to keep them alive.
i think this might be true. normally voldemort killed everyone regardless but Lily didn't have to die... i always thought it was odd that voldemort agreed not to kill her if necessary... thats not really his thing yk?
post #39 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1littlebit View Post
but snape had dumbledore to vouch for him... and he was never under the imperius curse... malfoy said he was under the imperious curse i believe... wouldn't veritaserum have been a good idea before chucking sirius in azkaban? did he get a trial? i don't remember... i am sure one of you will though!!
Sirius didn't get a trial, in GoF, he says that crouch sent him off without a trial.

Dumbledore talks about veritaserum in HBP, that there are antidotes or a spell that you can do to make the vertaserum not work. that's why he can't use it against slughorn.
post #40 of 255
Thread Starter 
[QUOTE=texmati;13975643]Sirius didn't get a trial, in GoF, he says that crouch sent him off without a trial. /QUOTE]

so i guess ethics aren't a consideration
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Books, Music, and Media
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › The Mindful Home › Arts & Crafts › Books, Music, and Media › Harry potter... do you ever wonder???