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 3

post #41 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1littlebit View Post
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?

I think that Voldemort always thought of snape as his most loyal, most devoted servant. I always thought of that as a testemant to what Snape must have risked to keep lily alive.
post #42 of 255
Thread Starter 
thats probably true...i guess it didn't occur to voldemort that a man who is begging for the life of a muggle born witch may not be a particularly good choice for most loyal servant.
post #43 of 255
I believe that Snape mentioned veritasirum being a highly controlled substance and very difficult to make. Not to mention poisonous if made wrong.

That and logic dictates that a humane society won't implement a method intended to force a confession. It's very likely that any confession obtained under the influence of veritasirum is not admissable as evidence to someones guilt or innocence.
post #44 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1littlebit View Post
thats probably true...i guess it didn't occur to voldemort that a man who is begging for the life of a muggle born witch may not be a particularly good choice for most loyal servant.
Yeah, but we all know Voldemort never understood the power of love. No doubt he figured that snape would get over it and move on.
post #45 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post
I believe that Snape mentioned veritasirum being a highly controlled substance and very difficult to make. Not to mention poisonous if made wrong.

That and logic dictates that a humane society won't implement a method intended to force a confession. It's very likely that any confession obtained under the influence of veritasirum is not admissable as evidence to someones guilt or innocence.
i never got the impression that they were real big on upholding laws that didn't suit them. crouch was sending people to prison without a trial, fudge was restricting the news paper, umbridge used veritaserum on half the students at hogwarts, they tried harry in front of the entire high court for underage magic that was completely legal under the circumstances... and would never have aquitted him if dumbledore hadn't been there.
post #46 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1littlebit View Post
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.
Sorry for the serial posting, but I could totally do this all day... I love harry potter!

Harry didn't *know* that it was a two way mirror. He didn't open the present until after sirius was dead. Sirius didn't give teh mirror to harry until the last bit of holiday, because Mrs. Weasly wouldnt approved, and then Harry vowed not to open it, because he was afraid that it would get sirius into trouble.

Which makes me wonder... why have the mirror at all? It doesn't change the plot at all.

I think it's a theme through out the books that the major deaths are pointless. Cedric dying changed nothing, sirius's dying was completely unnecessary. At the end of book 6, it appears that dumbledore died for nothing, as the locket was not really a horcrux.
post #47 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post
Yeah, but we all know Voldemort never understood the power of love. No doubt he figured that snape would get over it and move on.
yeah i just don't get why he thought someone who didn't hate all muggle borns would be all that loyal to him... since he didn't understand love wouldn't he wonder why snape would bother begging for her life?
post #48 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by texmati View Post
Sorry for the serial posting, but I could totally do this all day... I love harry potter!

Harry didn't *know* that it was a two way mirror. He didn't open the present until after sirius was dead. Sirius didn't give teh mirror to harry until the last bit of holiday, because Mrs. Weasly wouldnt approved, and then Harry vowed not to open it, because he was afraid that it would get sirius into trouble.

Which makes me wonder... why have the mirror at all? It doesn't change the plot at all.
keep posting!! i love this too. didn't sirius tell him to look in the mirror and say his name? i thought that it was sort of obviously what the mirror did... he said he and james used to use them to talk when they had separate detentions.
post #49 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1littlebit View Post
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.
I dont' think everyone knew about the dark mark. Sirius didn't know about it, and neither did fudge.

Dumbledore knew by the goblet of fire, because of snape. But Snape didn't turn against voldy until after lily was killed and sirius taken to azkaban w/out a trial.
post #50 of 255
Thread Starter 
i think he actually turned against him as soon as he threatened lilly... b/c he came to dumbledore and asked him to protect her.
post #51 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1littlebit View Post
i never got the impression that they were real big on upholding laws that didn't suit them. crouch was sending people to prison without a trial, fudge was restricting the news paper, umbridge used veritaserum on half the students at hogwarts, they tried harry in front of the entire high court for underage magic that was completely legal under the circumstances... and would never have aquitted him if dumbledore hadn't been there.
Yeah but those are all people who have a history of... questional morals.

The law not accepting veritasirum coffessions would be harder to deal with if that's all you have to go on.

With Sirius, there were a dozen muggle witnesses to cooberate what happened.
post #52 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1littlebit View Post
yeah i just don't get why he thought someone who didn't hate all muggle borns would be all that loyal to him... since he didn't understand love wouldn't he wonder why snape would bother begging for her life?
My guess is that he understood lust or some similar emotion and figured that love wasn't what made Snape beg for her life, only some baser physical attraction.
post #53 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post
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.
I could see Dumbledore not knowing Moody was Moody. (I do find it kind of iffy. He knew Moody, and Barty Crouch Jr. didn't. It's very unlikely that Barty wouldn't have made some kind of slip that gave him away). I don't buy that Dumbledore didn't know about Voldemort. Actually, I think in Snape's memories, there was something about "keep an eye on Quirrell," wasn't there? The issue of Voldemort not having returned doesn't apply to Dumbledore, because Dumbledore was the one person who was completely sure that Voldemort would be back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by magstphil View Post
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.
Yes, but that wouldn't eliminate the option.

Quote:
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 )
There was never any doubt that Harry had flaws. He was very human in many ways. It's not just that he used the curse in those circumstances, but the whole vibe around it. That scene didn't come off even a little bit like "Harry behaves in an out of character way under terrible stress" or like a flaw - it came off as if it was an admirable thing to do. That scene really bothered me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruthla View Post
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.
Yeah - but it's more than not telling him James was a prat. Everybody, except Snape, made him sound like the most perfect person ever. And, you know...that might have been fine, if she'd then showed even one memory (whether in the penseive, or from his friends) that showed his good side. Every single scene that the young James was actually in showed a very self-absorbed, not very nice, arrogant...UAV. It would have been hard to come up with nice things to say about him, beyond "he was an excellent Quidditch player".

Quote:
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 mind Dumbledore not being perfect. I think a few of his mistakes were on a level that seemed highly improbable, but I can live with that. I do object to the way Hagrid was portrayed in the later books. He wasn't a bad teacher, imo - he got screwed over by the Malfoys and then the class just fell apart. That whole sequence, from the time Draco got attacked by Buckbeak on, just didn't work for me at all.

Quote:
Veritaserum and GoF: Who could have provided Veritaserum but Snape?
Snape is Hogwart's Potions Master. It's never suggested anywhere that I recall that he's the only wizard in the world who can make Veritaserum. I'm sure that, in the time between the selection of champions and the first task, another source could have been found. If her wizarding world made any sense at all (it doesn't, imo - good fun, but many of the premises are just absurd), Veritaserum would be available for the courts, at least.

Quote:
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.
I do agree with this. People are going to forget things, even when it seems hard to believe that they would.

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.

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.
I didn't get any feeling there was a special charm. I guess the choice thing kind of makes sense, but...I don't know. I find it all really, really iffy. While it's unusual that Lily had the chance, because of Voldemort's actions, it's very unlikely that she was the first who had the choice. Surely, at the very least, there would have been some victims who could have fled, but chose to try to protect their loved ones, instead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by texmati View Post
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.
No trial...I forgot that. The wizarding world makes less sense all the time. They have a very involved system of rules, regulations, etc., but he got no trial? They can't/won't use Veritaserum, because it can be fooled...but it never occurs to anyone that maybe, just maybe, the Muggles who "saw" Sirius kill Peter Pettigrew could also be fooled? Weak...really weak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1littlebit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by texmati View Post
Sirius didn't get a trial, in GoF, he says that crouch sent him off without a trial.
so i guess ethics aren't a consideration
No kidding!

As far as Veritaserum is concerned, I really think Rowling just pulled it out of her hat, because she wanted it for one particular plot point, and gave no thought to how ridiculous it was, in terms of things that had already happened in the other books (or in OotP, for that matter). I already mentioned Harry's trial over the Dementors. Would a court really refuse to even try Veritaserum on a just-turned 15 year old Wizard, because he may be under the influence of a spell or antidote? Why would he be? I really don't think that the counters to Veritaserum would be so easy to come by that they'd be likely in the case of an under-age wizard, who lives with Muggles...
post #54 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by texmati View Post
At the end of book 6, it appears that dumbledore died for nothing, as the locket was not really a horcrux.
The locket doesn't matter. Dumbledore was dying, anyway, because of the curse on the ring horcrux.
post #55 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post
I believe that Snape mentioned veritasirum being a highly controlled substance and very difficult to make. Not to mention poisonous if made wrong.

That and logic dictates that a humane society won't implement a method intended to force a confession. It's very likely that any confession obtained under the influence of veritasirum is not admissable as evidence to someones guilt or innocence.
There's no evidence that the wizarding world is a humane society, though.

In any case, there's no issue of a forced confession if people are simply offered the option of using it if they can't prove their story any other way.
post #56 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post
Triwizard tournement. Likely Voldemort need time to perfect the spell that wormtail would be using to bring him back.
That might explain why they didn't get Harry to grab a portkey as soon as he got back to school, but it doesn't explain entering him in the Tri-Wizard tournament. Why not just wait until Wormtail had the spell perfected, then tell the fake Moody to lure Harry to a portkey? (Which could be as simple as getting him alone and saying, "Potter, hand me that thing over there, will you?" and much more likely to succeed than a plot that requires him to win the Tri-Wizard Tournament.)

I did kind of like the fact that there was so much cheating involved in the tournament, and that Harry never could have won without a lot of unauthorized help. And that lots of people, including Harry, used unforgiveable curses and didn't feel too bad about it. And that there was very little evidence that James was ever anything but a jerk. A little moral ambiguity and bad behavior from people on the good side is refreshing in a kids' book.
post #57 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daffodil View Post
That might explain why they didn't get Harry to grab a portkey as soon as he got back to school, but it doesn't explain entering him in the Tri-Wizard tournament. Why not just wait until Wormtail had the spell perfected, then tell the fake Moody to lure Harry to a portkey? (Which could be as simple as getting him alone and saying, "Potter, hand me that thing over there, will you?" and much more likely to succeed than a plot that requires him to win the Tri-Wizard Tournament.)
I agree that it's convoluted. However, there are protections on Hogwarts that prevent a portkey from being placed there except under very specific circumstances. They could have planted one in Hogsmeade and had "Moody" lure Harry there though, I imagine. I think another rationale was probably that the diversion of the tournament would distract others from keeping a good eye on Harry.

What I don't get about GOF though, is why Harry had to actually participate in each task and make any attempt at any kind of winning? I understand that he's bound to participate bc his name came out of the goblet. However, he could have "participated" via "hey look, he went into the maze. And stood by the entrance not really making an effort until someone else won." I guess they were just really clueless of the level of danger though, huh? Or they wouldn't have started that tournament at all.
post #58 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by EviesMom View Post
What I don't get about GOF though, is why Harry had to actually participate in each task and make any attempt at any kind of winning? I understand that he's bound to participate bc his name came out of the goblet. However, he could have "participated" via "hey look, he went into the maze. And stood by the entrance not really making an effort until someone else won." I guess they were just really clueless of the level of danger though, huh? Or they wouldn't have started that tournament at all.
I never really got that either... They kind of glossed over that in the book.

The other thing is why did the portkey bring him back to the grounds? I never ever understood that. Did one of the 'shadows' that came out of the wand bewitch the portkey to make it come go back to hogwarts?
post #59 of 255
Wow, you guys have done a lot of thinking about all of this! I am currently re-reading the series (and convinced DF to read it for the first time) and the only thing I keep wondering about is why isn't riding a broomstick uncomfortable?
post #60 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_lily View Post
Wow, you guys have done a lot of thinking about all of this! I am currently re-reading the series (and convinced DF to read it for the first time) and the only thing I keep wondering about is why isn't riding a broomstick uncomfortable?
Cushioning charms? lol I've wondered that myself, actually.
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???