History Headscratchers / HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallows

Please check [[http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq.cfm?ref=aboutthebooks JK's FAQs]] before asking a question that may have already been answered.

* [[Headscratchers/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsSiriusAndGrimmauldPlace Sirius and Grimmauld Place]]

* [[Headscratchers/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsWandDisarmament Wand Disarmament]]
* [[Headscratchers/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsLunasBedroomWall Luna's Bedroom Wall]]
* [[Headscratchers/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsWizardingPrejudice Wizarding Prejudice]]

* [[Headscratchers/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsSeverusSnapeGoodOrBad Severus Snape: Good or Bad?]]
* [[Headscratchers/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsHermioneAndHerParents Hermione and her Parents]]

* [[Headscratchers/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsAlbusDumbledoreGoodOrBad Albus Dumbledore: Good or Bad?]]

* [[Headscratchers/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsVoldemortsFinalDuel Voldemort's Final Duel]]

!![[Headscratchers/HomePage Headscratchers]] about the book: Specific Topics:
* [[Headscratchers/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsMollyVsBellatrix Molly vs. Bellatrix]]
* [[Headscratchers/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsSlytherinHouse Slytherin House]]
* [[Headscratchers/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsHogwartsAndMinistryOfMagic Hogwarts and Ministry of Magic]]

!!{{Headscratchers}} about the book: Specific Topics:

!!{{Headscratchers}} about [[Film/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallows the films, parts 1 and 2]]:

!!{{Headscratchers}} about [[Film/HarryPotter the films]]:

* [[Headscratchers/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsWhyDontTheTrioJustShootHim Why Don't the Trio Just Shoot Him?]]

* [[Headscratchers/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsLetsHateTheMudbloods Let's Hate the Mudbloods!]]

* [[Headscratchers/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsNarcissaLyingToVoldemort Narcissa Lying To Voldemort.]]

* [[Headscratchers/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsNarcissaLyingToVoldemort Narcissa Lying To Voldemort.]]

!!JustBugsMe about the book: Specific Topics:
* [[JustBugsMe/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsMollyVsBellatrix Molly vs. Bellatrix]]
* [[JustBugsMe/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsSlytherinHouse Slytherin House]]
* [[JustBugsMe/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsHogwartsAndMinistryOfMagic Hogwarts and Ministry of Magic]]
* [[JustBugsMe/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsVoldemortsFinalDuel Voldemort's Final Duel]]
* [[JustBugsMe/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsWandDisarmament Wand Disarmament]]
* [[JustBugsMe/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsLunasBedroomWall Luna's Bedroom Wall]]
* [[JustBugsMe/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsWizardingPrejudice Wizarding Prejudice]]
* [[JustBugsMe/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsSiriusAndGrimmauldPlace Sirius and Grimmauld Place]]
* [[JustBugsMe/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsWhyDontTheTrioJustShootHim Why Don't the Trio Just Shoot Him?]]
* [[JustBugsMe/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsSeverusSnapeGoodOrBad Severus Snape: Good or Bad?]]
* [[JustBugsMe/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsHermioneAndHerParents Hermione and her Parents]]
* [[JustBugsMe/HarryPotterEpilogue The Epilogue]]

* [[JustBugsMe/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsUnsortedExamples Unsorted]]

!!JustBugsMe about [[Film/HarryPotter the films]]:
* [[JustBugsMe/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsFilms The films]]

Please check [[http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq.cfm?ref=aboutthebooks JK's FAQs]] before asking a question that may have already been answered. Also, JBM about the film can be added under the heading after the book entries.
----

[[foldercontrol]]

[[folder: Molly vs. Bellatrix]]
* Did Mrs. Weasley really use the Killing Curse on Bellatrix Lestrange?
** The Killing Curse isn't the only curse that can kill, it's just very effective at doing so. Considering where it impacted that spell could have done a lot of internal damage just with a fair amount of force behind it.
** If she didn't use the Killing Curse, she should have. The good guys were too nice and thus easily defeated; while they played with children's magic by knocking out the opposition, the bad guys played for keeps and would have crushed the resistance at Hogwarts if not for an incredible Main/AssPull at the end.
*** Molly took Bellatrix out with one spell. How, exactly, is using the Killing Curse (which kills instantly) not as 'nice' as using a spell that still killed her but could have made it far more painful?
*** How exactly is stupefying less effective than killing from the combat prospective? This way or that the enemy is incapacitated.
*** Because a stupefied opponent can be put back in the fight immediately with a simple ''Enervate'', as the Death Eaters demonstrated during the Ministry battle when they just kept reviving each other. OTOH, somebody who just had their kneecaps turned to gravel by a bone-breaker hex is going to be out of it and stay out until they've had a trip to St. Mungo's.
**** Killing splits your soul. Unlike our world, it's a BIG NO for normal wizards. Good point about mutilating curses, though.
**** No, '''''murder''''' splits your soul, not killing. Killing in self defense has never been portrayed as evil in these books--though it hasn't happened very often.
***** OotP finale: Harry wangsts that the Prophecy means he will either be murdered or become a murderer. HbP; Harry grows a pair and wants to kill Riddle. DH: Harry is a TechnicalPacifist and bores Riddle to death with InfoDump.
**** But the original point: did it actually ever say they were only using "children's magic"? I believe Harry got a stern talking to because he insisted on using "Expelliarmus" instead of a more powerful spell.
***** Harry was told off more because the disarming charm was Harry's signature move, he had used it in front of a bunch of Death Eaters to (apparently at least) repel Voldemort. In a situation in which Harry is supposed to be undercover, using Expelliarmus made him easily recognizable and thus endangered the entire operation.
***** Harry, Ron and Hermione are the only ones whose spells we regularly see, and because they are still very young adults, they are not comfortable with the use of more lethal spells. We don't really see too many of the spells cast by the adult characters, especially during the final battle, and Lupin implies that the Order is more than willing to use Unforgivables to keep Harry safe. On the rare occasion that we do see an adult's spell described, such as [=McGonagall's=] flying dagger spam at Snape, they sound pretty lethal to me.
**** And [[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enervate "enervate"]] means to ''drain'' physical or mental strength or vitality, not to ''restore'' it.
***** Perhaps the ''enervate'' spell actually [[CastFromHitPoints drains energy from the caster]] and transfers it to the recipient, thus limiting its use in combat scenarios?
** Furthermore, why was it that Mrs. Weasley insisted on fighting Bellatrix alone? Dramatics aside, tactical pragmatism dictates that you should use overwhelming force to defeat your enemy. Instead of pushing those attacking Bellatrix aside, she should have joined them and helped overwhelm the evil witch. It served no other purpose than to show that Mrs. Weasley is a Main/BadAss.
*** One theory here could be that while four against one may work great when it's four thugs in an alley against one thug in an alley, but fighting with wands seems more comparable to duelling than to fisticuffs to me, thus it requires a certain ammount of skill and tactitcs. Having four people who have not prearranged a strategy all going for the same person at the same time could have just confused things, and nobody would have gotten a perfect shot in. Plus I anticipate that the kids were not aiming to kill whereas Bellatrix was and sooner or later she would've gotten them, which Molly must have realised: she ''was'' aiming to kill. Given what had just happened to her son, I don't blame her.
*** It's pure ConservationOfNinjutsu. Three on one was destined to lose, but one on one is even.
**** You're not that far from the truth. As a personal defense instructor, I can tell you that unless a group of combatants is trained and practiced to work together, the advantage usually lies with a single well-trained defender-- provided they know how to exploit pacing gaps, tactical angles, and are willing to put each opponent down HARD with a disabler, like broken bones. This changes, of course, once you get to "overbearing" odds, but three or four to one may stumble in each other's way.
***** Maybe you're right when it comes to close-combat. But we're talking about sided battle using ranged weapons.
***** We're talking about MAGIC for Christ's sake! It doesn't conform to the rules of ordinary fight, wether melee or ranged. It's supposed to be a duel of wills and emotions.
** What bugs me about this whole situation is that Mrs. Weasley actually managed to defeat Bellatrix. I realise that HP series is waaaay on the idealistic side of Realism vs. Idealism scale but still - Bellatrix is a powerful witch, 'trained in the Dark Arts by the Dark Lord himself', she's presumably extremely dangerous. Molly is a ''housewife''. Her beating Bellatrix in a duel makes just as much sense as a housewife beating up a heavyweight boxing champion. How can you justify it?
**** Anecdotally, a housewife once did knock out a heavyweight boxing champion. She took him by surprise, though - although Molly might have gained the element of surprise by running in against Bellatrix.
*** Well, didn't [[WordOfGod JK Rowling]] confirm that Molly only managed to defeat Bellatrix because Bellatrix underestimated her? Also, at this point Lestrange was the last Death Eater standing, so was probably worn out. She was too busy cackling like the maniac she was to pay much attention to the battle.
*** I know far too many women like Mrs. Weasley to have any difficulty believing it. Without naming names, one of them, a short, thin, soft-spoken middle-aged woman was upset at some teenagers fighting in front of the restaurant she worked at - so she went out and gave them hell, breaking up the fight, and causing them to leave chagrined. And then there's my other friend, who before settling down (somewhat...) worked as everything from a construction worker to a research chemist, traveled half the world... Trust me. There are quite a number of "housewives" I know that I'd never, ever want to face if they really got angry.
*** I take offense to the belief that housewives can't do anything. Also, neither of Harry's parents had jobs. JKR has said that all they did was fight in the order, which Mrs. Weasley did as well. Therefore, she should be just as good at magic as either of them, if not better, since she had been out of school longer.
**** Lily and James didn't have jobs?! So Aunt Marge was right! Anyway, given that they were also only 20 when Harry was conceived, was he an accident? It certainly wasn't the best time to have kids with a war going on.
**** They were only out of school for four years or so when they were killed, and it was stated (early on, I believe) that Voldemort's first reign of terror lasted 11. The seventh year of living under the Dark Lord is probably not the opportune time to be out in the world for a couple of Gryffindors who support Dumbledore.
**** Bellatrix's allies had just killed her son. You would be amazed at what ''any'' mother can do when her children are on the line. On top of the MamaBear thing, Bellatrix probably made the same mistake as the person asking the question - she just didn't take the woman seriously. The woman whose ''son's very recent death she was mocking just after nearly killing her other kid''. Smooth, Bella, real smooth. She probably just saw her as just a housewife and didn't put any real fight into it. If she had her chances would've been better.
*** It should also be pointed out that there were clues that Molly Weasley was rather skilled in magic before. Like her clock. A clock that can query the state of the universe and ask, "Hey, is ''this particular person'' in mortal danger right now?" Even for JKR-style magic, that's pretty powerful. And she almost certainly did not purchase such an artifact.
**** Also, remember, Molly can have five or six spells going at once and still ''Accio'' Ton-Tongue Toffees from Fred and George. I know she didn't actually do this, but how hard is it to switch from a potato-peeling charm to a person-peeling charm?
***** I'm skepical of the assertion that cooking, practiced in the sanctity of your own home, can turn you into a dueling badass.
***** No, years as part of the Order of the Pheonix, living through a genocidal war, having your child killed and the rest of your family's life on the line during said war, and said dead child mocked in front of you while your daughter and an as-good-as is also being threatened (not to mention raising Fred and George) can turn you into a dueling badass. Never underestimate a mother who's family's lives are on the line. Or any mother at all, for that matter.
**** Also, I think it should be noted that she's Molly Weasley nee Prewett. The Prewetts were extremely powerful wizards (it took quite a few Death Eaters to take out two, and most of the time, they were ''playing'').
**** Being a magical housewife means you get to use magic even more often than others.
**** What, so Molly would use Avada Kedevra while weeding the garden?
***** You tell me what else works on crabgrass?
**** Plus, Bellatrix is described as laughing in the same way Sirius did when she killed him. The way this troper read that scene was Sirius relaxing his defenses just to get a taunt in, and Sirius and Bella are both arrogant enough (and from a somewhat unstable family) to consider this a worthwhile strategy.
**** My objection to Molly Weasley's Sudden Superpowers has nothing to do with her day job and everything do to with the fact that Ginny, Hermione and Luna were having difficulty facing Bellatrix. Let's recap: these are two leaders of LaResistance and a woman who's been dodging Death Eaters for months on a wild cross country trek, and all three of them together can't take out Bellatrix. Then, Molly, who up until now has pretty much exemplified AdultsAreUseless, steps in and suddenly there's no problem? ''I don't think so.''
***** Pardon, but did you actually, you know, READ the books? From the beginning it's obvious that the entire Weasely family is terrified of Molly's rages. Her husband certainly backs down to her, and he is no dueling sloutch, either. Add into that the references to the power of the Prewett line she is descended from, give her plenty of practice in recent events as an Order member, and then maim one of her beloved children, murder a second and then threaten her only daughter. You have poked a sleeping bear. However, at NO TIME WHATSO-FRIGGIN-EVER did Molly EVER EVER EVER exemplify AdultsAreUseless. She's been fighting as a member of the Order for AT LEAST three years by now, not counting whatever she did in the first Dark War.
**** Seconded. She can't handle the boggart, she denies Harry critical information for emotional rather than rational reasons, and one of those times she is ''extremely'' rude about it. MamaBear isn't scary just because she's pissed, she's scary because she has hundreds of pounds of teeth, claws and muscle 'and' she's pissed. I buy Molly being enthusiastic, I just don't buy her suddenly becoming a skilled combatant.
***** Who's to say this skill is sudden? Just because she wasn't an Auror doesn't necessarily mean she wasn't good at Defence Against the Dark Arts. She was recruited into the Order of the Phoenix, you really think they would take in useless nobodies who had no idea how to fight? Not to mention Mad-Eye would have undoubtedly been running intense practice duels at all available times. And why do we even automatically assume Bellatrix is going to be more skilled? She spent fourteen years in Azkaban without a wand, how much practice do you think ''she'' got in? And as for taking on the Boggart, that wasn't about skill, that was because she made the mistake of taking it on alone in a dark, creepy house. Compare to how the kids faced the Boggart in Lupin's class, where everyone's happy and the sun is shining (and even jaunty music in the movie version). Lupin states that the most important part of dealing with a Boggart is having the right mindset.
****** Likely Molly has dealt with boggarts before, as they're part of the DADA curriculum. No one particularly seems to think of them as a big deal -- Lupin is utterly blase about his worst fear, for example (though that may just be because the real moon randomly appearing from a cupboard is pretty unlikely), and that one boggart is only left alone just because it might possible be something worse. So quite likely Molly has an expectation of what she'll see when the boggart transforms -- and instead is confronted with the corpses of her family. Who on earth could make ''that'' sight more comical on the fly?
****** And why do we even automatically assume Bellatrix is going to be more skilled? She spent fourteen years in Azkaban without a wand, how much practice do you think she got in?" She escaped from Azkaban back in book 5, so she has had over 2 years to get back in shape before she faces Molly.
***** Not to mention ''not'' having something genuinely horrible for it to draw on. Molly's boggart-induced vision of her family being dead goes as far beyond, say, Ron's fear of spiders as Harry's hearing his Mom die goes beyond what other characters experience from dementors.
***** "You really think they [the Order of the Pheonix] would take in useless nobodies who had no idea how to fight?" Yes. Yes I do. And you know I'm right. Pretty much the only real criteria the Order has for admision is being 17 years of age and having a pulse. Please witness giving [=McFletcher=] the duty of tailing Harry, twice. Please witness that the Order had zero concept of counterintelligence and need-to-know. Hell, even Dumbledore was willing to compromise their plans to give Snape a little more credibility.
****** Mudungus was mainly kept on for his connections to the black market though, not for his combat abilities.
***** Personally this troper never found it that far of a stretch that Molly Weasley could take out Bellatrix. She raised seven children, two of them being Fred and George. Through the years I bet she developed good dodging and spell reflexes if she didn't have them already.
*** Okay, trying to apply Occram's Razor: Bellatrix let her guard down. Molly Weasley got the element of surprise thanks to her anger and being fueled by adrenaline. Really, it doesn't take more than that.
**** Exactly. Hasn't anybody ever heard of people performing feats of strength under dangerous circumstances that, normally, would have been physically impossible for them?
***** It doesn't even take a feat of strength. There's more to a fight than direct statistical matchup. The best fighter will not always be the winner. Under controlled circumstances with both of them going at it their hardest, Molly probably wouldn't have won, but when out on the field, it's different. Bellatrix has been dueling one person after the next, was in the middle of dueling three people immediately prior. She was tired, she was angry, she was cocky, her whole mindset was completely out of the right zone for optimal combat, and she had her guard down when Molly struck. That's all it took.
** Mundungus served a very explicit purpose, which I believe was even mentioned: "He knows all the crooks", and thus, is useful. And counterintelligence was pretty easily resolved; the Order knew, possibly hours later, that Pius Thicknesse had been Imperiused, for example, due to their spies in the Ministry. Also, it is possible that they relied on Dumbledore for counterintelligence, which he took care of through Snape. He might have informed them they have a spy, but not told them who it was exactly, for security purposes. Someone gave {{The Departed}} as an example earlier, and I'll reference it again: the cops trusted Martin Sheen to take care of counterintelligence, making the exposure of [[LeonardoDiCaprio DiCaprio]] to everyone unnecessary. Point being: The Order of Phoenix knows what it's doing, and it's very likely, with two highly skilled brothers, that she received training. Just because she never really exposed her magical ability by basically devoting her life to her kids, does not mean she lacks it. Not to sound like an ass here, but it's an awfully Death Eater-ish argument some people are giving here, as if love and sacrifice weakened people, and implied they were somehow useless. Besides, I don't see anyone questioning Neville's transformation from an almost-Squib to a BAMF. It could be a mere line-of-sight thing.
*** What? Who said 'Molly shouldn't have been able to kill Bellatrix because she LOVES!'? There's nothing DE-ish about wanting Molly, if she had to have killed Bellatrix, to have had even a passing reference to have been a skilled duelist in the past. There's also nothing DE-ish about wanting Molly, if she had to have killed Bellatrix, to have a personal reason to dislike Bellatrix. Had Bellatrix killed Fred or had it been mentioned that she was one of the ones who killed Gideon and Fabian it would have seemed a lot less like it was out of nowhere. Say Augusta Longbottom had killed Bellatrix instead. She appeared in the series maybe twice and yet not only had she been established as being formidable by getting away from the DEs sent to capture her but given what Bellatrix did to Frank and Alice, she would have had a very good reason to want to take her out. Molly lacks both the established fighting prowess and personal motivation to make her coming out of nowhere, knocking people out of the way, and then killing Bellatrix in such a literally battle-stopping event to have been properly set up.
*** I don't think you can really claim she didn't have the motivation. Sure, Bella didn't kill Fred, but she is an important part of the group that caused his death (shortly before), caused her eldest son to be maimed, and kept trying to target her family and put her other children at risk. And then Bella is fighting with her YOUNGEST child and ONLY daughter, almost killing her. No, Bell didn't kill Fred, but she was hardly uninvolved. Whatever about Molly's skills (which, while not mentioned previously, there are no real reasons to doubt) she had PLENTY of motivation.
** There's also the fact that Slughorn specifically remembers Molly as being a very gifted witch when she was at Hogwarts. There are many hints and such that Molly has a good deal of skill, and no doubt a lot of experience. Remember also when the Order was fighting in the past. If you work out the timeline, she had ''five'' small children when Voldemort tried to kill Harry. This means that ''at some point'' during the war, she was ''PREGNANT'' while fighting. I think she can handle herself. Also with Hermione, Ginny, and Luna; Ginny and Luna haven't had Hermione's experience, it's true, but Hermione's also not ''slept'' in a couple of days, and has never been that great at dueling (better than Ron, hell yes, but not dueling in general).
*** Even better, ALL SEVEN of her children were born when Voldemort went after the Potter's. Ginny was only two and a half months old. And depending on when Voldemort revealed himself to the public (it was sometime in 1970) it is quite possible that ALL of the Weasley children were born during his original rise to power (Bill was born in late November, 1970).
*** If Molly was indeed such a gifted student, why is her family living on a single, low-level income? Is the wizarding world behind us in terms of married women in the workplace? No, I just don't see Molly as being particularly gifted. While we're on the subject, why would Molly not be in employment? Her kids are grown up, and if house-elves are morally acceptable slaves, why don't the Weasleys have one?
**** Yeah, her staying home definitely has nothing to do with her 7 kids. Also, if they can't afford to get Ron his own * wand* , would they really be able to afford purchasing a house elf?
**** As far as "staying home" goes, five of her kids have left home by the sixth book (although, yes, the war had begun so getting a job probably wasn't a priority), and they all went to boarding school anyway. Molly is a witch, so what did she do all day while the bewitched house cleaned itself? This isn't an anti-housewife tirade, but Molly's workload during the series really was not that extensive. Besides, her occupation has nothing to do with her magical ability, but I don't think she'd have been able to take on a master of the dark arts like Bellatrix without being underestimated, as JK Rowling has confirmed.
*** Really don't know if I buy the idea of Molly fighting in the first war. She's not mentioned in the picture of the original Order of the Phoenix (Not all told that that group was all that effective). Hagrid explicitly states that when Voldemort went after someone, that person was '''dead'''. My guess is that the first time around the Weasley's kept their heads down just like everyone else. In the 14 year interm period the wizarding world was in a state of We Do Not Talk About You-Know-Who. I doubt very many people had access to get training, especially not for a family with really limted income. I mean, the only interaction with anti-dark books we see is with Lockhart.
*** Molly is implied to have inherited considerable magical talent, have plenty of motivation and (this one's a bit of speculation) ''received actual training''. She was sister to Gideon and Fabian Prewett, who needed 5 Death Eaters ganging up on them to take down. It's highly unlikely she'd be ignored in the magical training. Moreover: CrouchingMoronHiddenBadass. Just because she prefers to stay at home and raise a family doesn't mean she's not capable of taking up arms when needed. So the picture didn't include her. That's understandable. She probably didn't go out and fight overtly -she doesn't strike me as the kind of person to do so- but she probably did receive the training to do so in case of need.
*** Molly didn't fight in the first war. In Order of the Phoenix, Lupin says "look, I can't promise no one's going to get hurt, nobody can promise that, but we're much better off than we were last time. You weren't in the Order then, you don't understand. Last time we were outnumbered twenty to one by the Death Eaters and they were picking us off one by one..."
*** Molly wasn't in the Order during the last war because if (as noted above) Voldemort came forward in 1970, and, as we know, he fell in 1981, then Molly would have been pregnant for almost the entire war. Bill was born in late '70, Charlie at the end of '72, then the largest gap, with Percy coming in mid '76, Fred and George in April '78, Ron in March '80, and Ginny in August '81. It would have been extremely dangerous for Molly to be near the frontlines at any point, her family was brand new, and continually growing. She was not out of the war because she was incompetent, she was out because she had other responsibilities.
**** That's going a bit too far. In a war, it doesn't matter whether or not you're a member of a resistance, you're going to fight if you have to. What with all the uncertainty and peril going around, I wouldn't be surprised if at one point Molly was forced to confront a Death Eater without Arthur. Let's not even get to the fact that, if one of her children had accidentally wandered into the path of danger, [[MamaBear she would have sprung into action like any other mother would]].
***** Defending yourself when an individual enemy soldier tries to kill you as a civilian (either because s/he is breaching discipline or because s/he has been ordered to commit an atrocity) is NOT "fighting in a war," it's a common sense survival instinct and falls squarely into self-defense. Fighting in a war is when you join or form a group (your country's army, the local resistance guerrillas, etc...) and support or conduct efforts to damage to enemy forces regardless of whether they are targeting you at the moment or not, with the knowledge that by doing so you will yourself be becoming a target for the enemy as well.
***** But that doesn't change the fact that she must've had to roll up her sleeves and kick ass once in a while.
**** Is it me, or was that just a [[JerkAss jerkass]] thing for Lupin to say? I think she understood all too well what happened last time, which is probably why she had her objections. Losing two brothers to Death Eaters, who outnumbered them, would kind of stick in the memory.
*** Honestly, where is this "Molly was useless" crap coming from? Every instance of her character throughout the books portrayed her as a savvy, respected, cautious, and powerful witch. The multiple-spells-at-once should have been a dead giveaway. Who else in the ENTIRE series pulled anything remotely close to that off? She simply had other things to worry about than glory-hogging! Sweet Jebus, people, go up to your own mothers, those of you who had "only housewife" moms, and tell them they're all but useless! See if you don't come away with less than a black eye.
**** There is no indication that Molly is any better at housework than any other adult witch or wizard. No one says anything about how multiple housework spells going on at once is at all unusual and it probably isn't. No one is saying she was useless or that she wasted her life raising children. What people ARE saying is that her being able to do housework and raise children is not an indication that she is good at fighting. It doesn't mean she automatically can't fight, either. Her housework-doing and child-rearing really have nothing to do with her fighting abilities which are never at all mentioned.
**** Which reminds me, Neville's grandmother is like this as well. "Little old witch living alone, they probably thought they didn't need to send anyone particularly powerful." Her son and daughter-in-law were in the Order and were both Aurors, so she, like Molly, were more [[TookALevelInBadass badass]] than they let on.
**** Not to mention that boasting about your badassery would be an extremely stupid thing to do when you're a parent and find yourself on the weaker side of a war. WordOfGod states that Lily and James withdrew from the politics when Harry was born, so it's much of a stretch to imagine that Molly, Arthur and Augusta did the same thing.
*** Bellatrix ''clearly'' died for the same reason that Sirius did- she got cocky, let her guard down and paid the price. As for how Mrs.Weasley managed to hold up against Bellatrix long enough to take advantage of Bellatrix's distraction, Bellatrix probably didn't take her seriously right from the start of the duel. The idea that Mrs.Weasley was training a lot has merit as well- we never are told what she does with herself while her children are at Hogwarts. Once Ginny went to Hogwarts she could have spent several hours a day training and nobody would have been any the wiser. Even if she didn't start training until Voldemort came back, that's still at least three years she could have been preparing.
*** This troper believes that it was a combination of Bella's arrogance and Molly's skill as a witch that got Helena Bonham Carter killed. After all, a few people have mentioned so far that she was sister to brothers Gideon and Fabian Prewett, who were highly skilled wizards for whom it took FIVE Death Eaters to bring down, and it's implied that they took a couple of the [=DEs=] with them, too.
** Haven't we all heard the anecdote about the mother who found the will to lift a ''car'' off of her trapped child? When a person is running on such a high octane mixture of adrenaline & emotion, there's no telling what they're capable of.
** I think the issue of how Molly could defeat Bellatrix isn't so much how could Molly be competent, it's how was the Dark Lord's Lieutenant not more competent? Of course we have the issue of the guy who supposedly pushed magic further than any other wizard being defeated by an angsty teenager, but there you go. For better or worse, this isn't DBZ where power actually matters. Who gets to kill who in Harry Potter is a matter of plot, not fighting ability.
*** First, which DBZ did you watch? Second, Bellatrix is, as it's been said, cocky, arrogant, and also a tad bit unstable. Those things don't usually add up to competence.
**** She seemed competent enough when she defeated Kingsley Shacklebolt, killed Sirius Black, deflected an attack by Dumbledore that dropped all the other Death Eaters, forced Snape to make an Unbreakable Vow, killed Dobby, killed Tonks, and fought Hermione, Luna, and Ginny simultaneously; at worst, stalemating against the three duelists, and at best, actually starting to win, as she had almost dwindled them down to two when Molly intervened. Crazy and arrogant, certainly, but the girl's got credentials.
***** Above: Kingsley had just been jinxed by DUMBLEDORE, Sirius had been about to defeat her after fighting off several opponents, she got owned by Dumbledore in the (completely canon) book, Snape was willing, Dobby was distracted (and not exactly a BAMF anyway) Tonks had just given birth, Hermione hasn't slept for days after breaking into Gringotts, fighting off a host of guards and escaping on an enraged dragon and Luna's just been rescued from a pitch-black cellar in Malfoy Manor.
*** You're forgetting Bellatrix's single most important trait: she's batshit INSANE! She exhibits huge mood swings, and gloating in the middle of a fight is not out of character for her ("I killed Sirius Black! I killed Sirius Black!"). Also, Kingsley is the Hobgoblin.
* Fridge Brilliance: Molly Weasley has just had a child murdered, her life and the life of all her friends and family threatened. This would mean the Power of Love becomes pretty strong, yes? Earlier, Harry could block Voldemort when Dobby died, so Molly Weasley was perhaps boosted/protected by this power? OH, and the universe hates Bellatrix: her karma is an easily-studiable example of a singularity.
* Question to the people bugged by Molly's "[[SarcasmMode sudden superpowers]]"... How many of you are bugged by ''Neville's'' off-screen development from near-Squib to BAMF at the end of Book 7? And unlike Molly, there were almost ''no'' clues that he was really that powerful! Ron [[LampshadeHanging pointed out that]] Neville could barely stand a cauldron up straight, [=McGonagall=] told him to drop Transfiguration, his ''only'' good subject is Herbology (which is implied to barely employ magic, even at the higher levels), his memory is awful, and even ''he'' often points out how lousy at magic he is. Now don't get me wrong -Neville is one of my favorite characters, and after all the hell he went through I was cheering for his "Squib-to-BAMF" transformation, but when you look at his and Molly's objectively and compare them, hers is ''a lot'' more believable. (It was pointed out earlier, but Molly's clock should have been a dead giveaway: Even ''Dumbledore'', the most powerful wizard since Merlin, admired it.)
** Neville was actively engaged in guerrilla warfare for the better part of a year, on top of being one of Harry's better students in his illegal Defense Against the Dark Arts class (and, to be fair, he was always reasonably good at Defense Against the Dark Arts and Charms). Molly was, as far as the reader is aware, sitting at home nervously knitting sweaters.
** Okay, in the books, the Carrows wanted to blame Voldemorte's coming on the students, knowing full and well that he would probably torture and kill ten of them in anger. These were, sick, dark times. "Neville! They look like they used you as a knife sharpener!" I mean, really, that'd drastically change anyone. It's pretty much FridgeHorror. Also, Bellatrix just had a kinda VillainousBreakdown. She was crumbling, and Molly was just getting started. It just took one spell, one chance, one good distracted second, and it would all be over. She got it, and she hit Bellatrix, and she won. So, it may have been sudden, but the cirumstances were extreme, requiring sudden transformations, for Neville, major adrenaline, for Molly, and just caused insanity, for Bellatrix.
*** I'd just like to point out that there's a difference between magical prowess and badassery. Neville we know stood up to the Carrows, re-organised the DA, planned guerilla warfare, protected younger students and then STOOD UP TO VOLDEMORT, which is incredibly brave. He also wields a sword well enough to chop off a snake's head. But not one of these activities necessarily needs magical ability. "It is our choices...that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." So, though I agree that Molly could conceivably be a closeted badass, Neville's BAMF-ness is not really comparable.
** This discussion could get benefits by some cut. Anyway, it has been said several time that Molly was particularly driven during the duel. It would hardly matter in a mundane gunfight, but in wizards' world "You must want it" (cit: Bellatrix). That is, your magic is stronger when you are mad at your target.
** Neville was hindered for the first 5 books by using an unsuitable wand, because his grandmother had stubbornly insisted that he use his father's wand. That wand was broken during the Department of Mysteries battle, and thus he finally replaced it with one that functioned properly for him. That's why he's so much more effective in the final battle than his previous appearances would've led us to expect.
* This bugged me too, at first, not because Molly was competent but because I agree with whoever wrote the stuff about Bellatrix not being more competent - I thought it was heavily implied throughout the series that Bella was basically the most powerful dark wizard not named Voldemort. Then, possible fridge brilliance struck me. I thought Molly was using Avada Kedavra (again, not stated, but I also thought heavily implied). And it doesn't matter how powerful the target of Avada Kedavra is because it can't be blocked or resisted, it only matters that the person casting it has enough power to "make it work."
* The bottom line is the only piece of evidence we have either way regarding Mrs. Weasley's talents at dueling is that she beat Bellatrix, who was obviously pretty talented. Prior to this, we have no evidence either way for her talents. Maybe she's never even cast Expelliarmus before, or maybe she was the captain of the Hogwarts Dueling Team and then only dropped out of Auror school because Arthur knocked her up. Nothing was ever established either way on this point. The one piece of evidence we have establishes her as obviously pretty skilled, and I don't see why people would find that particularly hard to believe.
[[/folder]]


[[folder: The Slytherin House]]
* After six to seven years of drumming in the idea that "the Houses must work together," and not a little discussion of how Slytherin was going to contribute to the whole saving-the-world thing, why is it that the Slytherin kids split (not before threatening to turn Harry over if they stayed), the Slytherins who "contributed" aren't anywhere near the status of heroes -- aside from Snape, who still turned out to be an insufferable jerk despite all the courage and resourcefulness and all that -- and, nineteen years later, the Houses are still standing and the Slytherins are ''still'' the despised bigots they were some twenty years ago? What happened to the big moral lesson we were supposed to learn about different personalities still being equally capable of heroism? And why do the Houses still read as "Brave, Intelligent, Hard-Working, and EVIL"?
** Sorting Hat sang of House Unity in books 5-6. In bks 1-4 & 7, Slyths were AlwaysChaoticEvil.
** Point of fact, they don't. JKR recently confirmed during an online interview that, although rivalries will always exist, the houses get along better now. Notice that even Harry accepts Slytherin in the end. The Slytherin-hate you refer to is probably Albus Severus's personal thing. And for the record, the qualities are Brave, Intelligent, Hard-working, and Ambitious.
*** Earlier interviews, bks 1-4, people asked why DD did not abolish the House of Evil. Jo said DD wanted to give people a second chance. She lied. Slug, Andromeda, Phineas and Regulus PROVE that Slyth only became the House of AlwaysChaoticEvil under Snape's regime because of DD's plan for the "Geater Good."
*** Except in that one Sorting Hat Song about the founding of Hogwarts, in which the houses were identified (not in the same order) as Brave, Intelligent, Pure-blooded, and "Other". The ''real'' question isn't why they have an "evil" house, but why anyone's ever excited to end up in Hufflepuff, the official "Doomed to not be a major character in this story" house.
*** There are a lot of qualities that make people fit into Hufflepuff that don't include tendencies towards being a protagonist or going on wild adventures against villains who are trying to kill you. A lot of people I know in real life would probably be Hufflepuffs, and they're not boring or useless people, but they also wouldn't be protagonists in a fantasy story.
*** Actually, Hufflepuffs get more screen time in general than Ravenclaws, excepting Luna.
*** Don't know about you, but I'm happy with doing reasonably well and living a nice life. Being a protagonist usually implies having shit thrown at you. I'd rather be a side character, thank you. Hufflepuffs feel proud for their house because they're loyal to their house. That's their defining trait, after all. They're the House of Sidekicks, in a way. Not meant to be at center stage, but integral to keep the world afloat. I, for one, would like being Hufflepuff.
**** Exactly. Asking why someone would be excited to be a Hufflepuff because they're background characters is missing the point. The fact that they * are* interested in modestly working in the background * is what makes them Hufflepuffs.*
** Besides, what about Regulus? Or Narcissa, who saved everyone in a Slytherin fashion if ever there was one?
*** Or Horace Slughorn, a Slytherin who took on Voldemort himself?
*** ^ After previously acting like a terminal coward who would sooner avoid his well-loved comfort than even admit he'd said something ill-advised to a manipulative teenager who had everyone else fooled. Forget Harry. Slughorn coming around was the part where I stood up and cheered.
**** Slughorn spent a whole year constantly on the run for his ''life'' because he refused to knuckle under and join the bad guys. He could have stopped at any time and said, "All right, I'm sick of my life always being in danger, I'll join you." Instead, he did what was right. He was never a coward, he just had to fight the Slytherin tendency to think of self-preservation first (if for any sinful reason than for one of self-centeredness, not cowardice).
**** It may be because the story is told from Harry's point of view, and he's biased. Also keep in mind that James Potter was pretty much a major league asshole, and he was a Gryffindor, as was Peter, the traitor.
***** Not to mention Romilda Vane and [=McClaggen=] as other examples of how Gryffindor boldnesss can easily become jerkassness.
***** If you think about it, though, we know pretty much all the Slytherins in Harry's year. While not all are evil, half of them have Death Eater parents, and the other half aren't exactly heroic. The younger students were forced to leave. And, let's face it, Snape had good qualities, but he did everything in his power to hide them. He wasn't a good influence. Slughorn would probably help with the next generation.
****** I always assumed that this was cultural damage as a result of Voldemort turning the pure blood wizards on to genocide against anyone who could not prove two or more generations of inbreeding. There is little to indicate that the pure blood mania is a natural part of Slytherin. The entire wizarding world of the UK has been through a bloody civil war not twenty years earlier and this is some of the backlash from it...
*** All this and WordOfGod aside: Why didn't JKR just add a line or two ''saying'' there were Slytherin among the charge at the end? Or simply have some of the Slytherin stay behind at the start? If she's the one saying not all Slytherin are assholes, why not ''show it''?
**** Because all of the Slytherins who were even ''allowed'' to stay ''were'' assholes. No one except those of age were allowed to stay (Colin aside, but then again, Gryffindor = bravery; he was like the only resistance member in Gryffindor who wasn't of age) and of the Slytherins we know were of age, Malfoy and Goyle were there (though ultimately useless and/or for different reasons) as was Crabbe (who sided with the Death Eaters) Pansy left, and Zabini probably did the same. That's it. That's ALL of the Slytherins we know. And hardly anyone else would have even been allowed to be there.
**** Because the word of God was actually revisionism when compared to the books? The Slytherins of age we know were more likely to side with Death Eaters. And were they rejected by other Slytherins? Never mentioned. And Aberforth argued that they should have kept the Slytherins -- as hostages. So, after all of this, would we have believed, in the books, that the Slytherins came back to fight on Harry's side, even if they had to fight their own parents?
*** Slughorn had to be liquored to the gills before he was willing to give information that was critical to Voldemort's defeat because he didn't want to face his own responsibility in aiding Voldemort's rise. To say nothing of the fact that he had remarkably little interest in people like Neville and Ron.
**** Bolleaux! "Riddle has seven Horcruces. You gotta get 'em all." DD wasted the whole year telling Harry nothing.
**** Hilariously, his responsibility is so minor. The real question Voldemort wanted answered (if it was possible to make more than one Horcrux), Slughorn never answered.
*** But he does eventually man up. And his self-serving ideas are a godsend, compared to the racists allying with a genocidal maniac. 'Very talented for a Muggleborn' aside, he doesn't care who you are or where you come from or even if your 'talent' is a particularly good curse he just happened to witness (see: Ginny) as long as it can help him out a little - and the thought of anyone getting hurt makes him ill. He's probably what the house was MEANT to be, as 'ambitious' hardly means {{Jerkass}}. Tom pretty much stole the house out from under him, which explains a lot.
*** Slughorn hardly is that bad. Dumbledore himself says that other teachers have offered leg-ups to talented students before. And even Dumbledore acknowledges that Slughorn is very good at putting people in places where their talents would be best used. When Voldemort takes over, Slughorn remains at school with the other teachers to protect the kids, when he'd have more reasons then most to flee and hide (since he's one of the few who could probably piece together that Voldemort has multiple horcruxes). He's even willing to face ''Voldemort'' in combat. He's also shown to be a fairly good potions teacher, who at the very least in interested in his subject matter and does want to make the subject interesting to his pupils. All in all, Slughorn looks better then a lot of Hogwarts teachers like Mr. Binns. Add on top of that, Slughorn does look like he'd be more fun to hang out with then [[TheStoic [=McGonagall=]]].
*** Anyway, what about the epilogue? Harry pointing out that Snape was both a Slytherin and the bravest man he ever knew? I'm not even one of Snape's fangirls, and yet I'm surprised no one has pointed this out. I'm sure it's meaningful that one of the last things we see Harry do is defend Slytherin.
*** I, for one, would have liked to see Slytherin STUDENTS joining in the battle and described by the book, even if was just 3 or something and had self-serving reasons for doing so. Adults just aren't the same... they don't have the same association with their houses as students do, even the teachers and heads of houses.
**** Actually, there's a bit of FridgeBrilliance in making it ambiguous as to whether or not the Slytherin students remained behind to fight - most of their parents were Death Eaters and thus were invading the castle under Voldemort's orders. Whether or not they agreed with Voldemort's ideals, it definitely would have been a very difficult decision to remain behind and fight and potentially kill their parents and loved ones. Plus, they probably also figured that if Voldemort won, he'd certainly hurt or murder their parents as punishment for their involvement (look at what happened to the Malfoys).
***** It was not ambiguous. Riddle mentioned to Lucius that ALL Slyths except Draco and minions had joined Riddle's army.
** Theory: the Slytherins were in that last charge. It's just that they took the brunt of the casualties, and thus, had no one left to testify about their part. Or they took the brunt of the 'sent home in an urn' casualties, and thus didn't really have a visible presence after the battle (except possibly as a mass unknown student grave).
*** Ultimately, I think a lot of the negativity regarding Slytherin is based on reputation. The Sorting Hat did seem to make subtle criticisms towards the house I think (possibly out of loyalty to Gryffindor after he and Slytherin parted ways). Plus there's the fact that Voldemort only recruited Death Eaters from that house. I don't think that means only Slytherins are capable of evil; I think Voldemort thought the other houses were not worth his time. Then there's the fact that Slytherin's animal is a snake, which, given that Voldemort is a Parseltongue, increases the dark reputation. Then there's the fact that Slytherin himself kept a huge, ''fucking'' snake in a secret chamber specifically to hunt down and kill non-purebloods. Like I said. Bad rep.
**** See Gryffindor Peter Pettigrew for one instance of a non-Slytherin recruit. I'm not saying that he didn't primarily recruit from Slytherin (as it was probably the easiest house to recruit from people that wanted blood supremacy); it's just not fair to say he recruited only from Slytherin when it would be easier to recruit from all houses to inspire more fear on who to trust.
** Variation: Slytherin ''revels'' in its "bad rep" (if you can't be famous, be infamous) and to do something so heroic, so "Gryffindor-y" as to charge the Death Eaters would be the opposite of their reputation. So they disguised themselves first...
*** Agreed. Perhaps it is best to compare the four houses to the (stereo)typical four-class D&D party--fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue. (Yes, even though they're ''all'' wizards. Just deal with it.) Gryffindor is the "fighter", Hufflepuff the "cleric", Ravenclaw the "wizard", and Slytherin the "rogue". This analogy works surprisingly well, IMHO.
**** And people wonder why this site has a {{Nerd}} rep. Really, that's an underhanded compliment.
*** Anyway, by Book 7 Draco Malfoy and his crew have been ruling the underclassmen of Slytherin House for years. By the time the big fight happens, there would've been very few Slytherins who were both old enough to fight ''and'' defiant enough to risk death, especially if two of their teachers and the headmaster himself were Death Eaters. Besides, who would they turn to? Not the other teachers, not anyone in Hogsmeade, and ''definitely'' not the DA (no green banners in their Room of Requirement HQ). The only option that jibes with Slytherin's powerful self-preservation instincts would be to play along and pray no one sets off the Carrows' BerserkButton.
**** That's what really bothers me - no one even considers the immense social pressure that all Slytherins would be under, forcing even decent students to not step out of line out of fear. Can you imagine what that would have been like? You're surrounded by fanatical Death Eaters every moment of the day, where the slightest hint of disloyalty could get you or your family killed, with no support or anyone to turn to because they're convinced you're evil, and you basically have to bow your head to a racist regime you don't agree with. Perhaps that's why they didn't stick around to fight; why go back and help the people who didn't give the slightest damn about helping you?
*** Especially with the fighter, wizard cleric, rogue parallel, I like to think that there were some Slytherins trained in sniping spells hiding in the towers and switching rooms so they didn't get caught by an overwhelming force of death eater sympathizers at any given time, maybe working as guerrillas where they knew some of the quirks of the castle or were outdoorsy enough to hang out in the forbidden forest between strikes. The ambition part, however, would have made it nearly impossible for them to say, "I was there, I just didn't want to do anything obvious enough to get caught like a stupid- I mean brave, really! Gyryffindor", and be believed.
** Gryffindor, Song 1: brave at heart, daring, nerve, chivalry. Song 2: bravest. Song 3: brave deeds, daring, chivalry. Ravenclaw, Song 1: Wise, steady mind, wit, enjoy learning. Song2:cleverest. Song 3: sharp mind, intelligience. Hufflepuff, Song 1: just, patient, loyal, unafraid of toil. Song 2: Hard-workers, . Song 3: Teach the lot, take the rest. Slytherin Song 1: cunning, do anything to achieve their means. Song 2: Great ambition. Song 3: Pure ancestry, cunning. *Phew* that's all of them. As we can see, the exact requirements seem to be stated differently every year, but basically Gryffindor is for people who are brave, daring, and chivalrous. Ravenclaw is for those who are smart. Slytherin is for cunning, pure ancestry, and ambition. Finally Hufflepuff is for anyone as long as they're willing to work hard. The reason Slytherins are portrayed as evil in the Fanon, is because the Canon does a crappy job of portraying them as anything different. Harry hates Slytherins and they are constantly shown in a negative light besides a few examples such as Slughorn and maybe Snape. ''Never'' has the books shown a single student in Slytherin who wasn't a JerkAss.
*** That brings up a problem I had with the descriptions: One definition of "cunning" is "in a sly, deceitful way" (quote Dictionary.com), but another, quite common definition is "clever". If Ravenclaws are supposed to be smart ''and'' clever, which throws out the possibility that [[DitzyGenius the only requirement is Intelligence]] and Slytherin [[OnlySaneMan sorts with a bias for high Wisdom as well]], that basically leaves Slytherin with "''conniving'' and ambition". [[FantasticRacism And no part-muggles]], [[AccidentalAesop unless they're]] ''[[MagicalNegro really]]'' [[FamilyUnfriendlyAesop clever and ambitious]] (I'm probably overthinking the last line's UnfortunateImplications [[WhatDoYouMeanItsNotDidactic too much]]).
* "Anyway, what about the epilogue? Harry pointing out that Snape was both a Slytherin and the bravest man he ever knew? I'm not even one of Snape's fangirls, and yet I'm surprised no one has pointed this out. I'm sure it's meaningful that one of the last things we see Harry do is defend Slytherin."

Yes, Snape was brave. That works both ways. There were Death Eaters that joined Voldemort because they were weak, or because they were afriad or whatever and Death Eaters that after his fall pretended to be on the good side and having been under the Imperius Curse. Snape was neither. He joined Voldemort because he genuinely believed in all that he stood for, and had to be blackmailed by Dumbledore to join the good guys. Regulus Black was much the same, believing in pure blood supremacy and the Dark Arts and all that jazz whereas his older brother, born to the same family saw the truth of things and was promptly the first in the family to be a Gryffindor. Until Kreacher endured torture by Voldemort and he started hating him. Narcissa married a Death Eater, led a home where the House-Elf beats himself and where many poisons were being kept long after Voldemorts fall and was the one to instruct Kreacher how to lead Harry off to his death until Draco's life was hanging in the balance and she needed to trust Harry.
* Snape was NOT brave. An ordinary person doing very dangerous work is indeed brave. Snape said "I want to die."
** Okay, so saying "I want to die" is not brave. (I actually don't recall this, but I'll take your word for it that it happened.) It's not brave. But Snape played triple agent for over twenty years, working loyally for Dumbledore, a man he resented. Originally he only did it for Lily, a selfish reason, but the fact that he continued working for Dumbledore after Lily's death, and after the fact that he blamed Dumbledore for Lily's death, says something for him. I'd say that everything mixes into unclear-ness (wow, a new word,) if it hadn't been for how he treated his students, but as I said in "Severus Snape: Good or Bad", I believe that that aspect of him is meant to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

So the best a Slytherin can be is still a vile discriminating criminal just with an exploitable weak spot for someone. At the end of the day Slughorn is the only Slytherin with the heart actually in the right place (though 16 years of teaching children finally seemed to mellow Snape out a little) and he still is portrayed in a pretty grey light. Why doesn't Harry care if his son is sorted in this House again? Whatever message you are trying to send here JKR, not really getting it.

[[/folder]]


[[folder: Hogwarts / Ministry of Magic]]
* Other than the DefaultAnswer, how did Voldemort and his Death Eaters take over ALL OF BRITAIN just by placing an Imperius Curse on just a few officials? The citizens just accepted the new regime despite being in an open war with the Death Eaters and still VASTLY OUTNUMBERING THEM! Shouldn't there have been some sort of resistance from the Aurors and normal citizens alike? I mean, they were just allowing citizens to be dragged away and killed. Don't tell me they didn't know, everyone did.
** Same story as with any such regime. The tyrant was cracking down hard, and not enough people were willing to organize out of fear. (And the rumors about how, for instance, Harry killed Dumbledore, can't have helped.)
*** This isn't the same story because: 1. the citizens all had weapons (their wands) and 2. Voldemort has what 1 to 2 hundred Death Eaters against thousands of armed citizens. And as for the rumors, what kind of idiots would believe a regime that includes known mass murderers (Bellatrix and others)?
**** After what we've seen of the Ministry in ''Order of the Phoenix'', that they went along with the Thicknesse policy even after it became clear he was under Voldemort is hardly a stretch. And even outside the Death Eaters, there's a mainstay of pureblood supremacism. But as for your main point, about the wands... yeah, all right. Rowling never did strike me as big on gun rights, so it's pretty reasonable to say she never gave the idea of an armed citizenry much thought.
***** Still, '''known Death Eaters''' working for the Ministry? Come on, someone ''must'' have noticed that! You also wonder why no one noticed the tremendous imbalance of numbers in favor of the general public, who hate Voldemort. As for the pureblood supremacy part, only the purebloods themselves believed that, there weren't many left, ''and'' not all of them believed in it. Of course, Voldemort is the exception.
***** Voldemort and the Death Eaters effectively divided and conquered. They forced all the kids to come to Hogwarts, splitting them from their parents, then kept them in line with threats to hurt the other (ex: The Lovegoods).
****** You mean Yaxley? He's one of the folks who wriggled out of Azkaban, and was in the Ministry long before the coup. And there's still the dementors, giants and Inferi. The former two being the ones Dumbledore mentioned as critical to the war effort.
****** Hey, a known Death Eater ran ''Durmstrang''. If they'll let their kids be educated by one, they'll let them do anything.
******* From all we've seen, Voldemort tended to focus on Britain first. It's entirely possible that most of the people who send their kids to Durmstrang don't know what a Death Eater is - and that the rest would be happy to see him in charge (remember, the Malfoys considered sending Draco there).
** Wizards are well known for sticking their heads in the sand, and Voldemort carefully forged a reputation for blowing the families of those who opposed him into little pieces. Add to that the fact that the Ministry pretty much centralized all authority and the Wizarding world is pretty much leaderless. Death Eaters Apparating to the area whenever someone says Voldemort's name can't have helped much either.
*** That's a reasonable explanation; however, some things still need to be addressed. Voldemort seized control of the Ministry through the Imperius Curse and not a word was muttered in opposition by the wizarding world. There would have been some form of resistance, even if it was not well organized, in the beginning. Death squads would have eventually stamped them out, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have tried. The author comes across a significant problem in this regard, because Voldemort takes control of the Ministry and literally within a matter of seconds his rule is accepted outright, the wanted criminals and villains forming his ranks are allowed to operate openly in society with absolute impunity, and people still recognize the Ministry as the legitimate authority. Furthermore, the Order of the Phoenix and the Death Eaters have been engaging each other in literal death matches for years (essentially mounting to open war between the two groups), and yet once the Ministry is taken, both sides immediately stop fighting. Members of the Order are allowed to continue operating normally in society (e.g., Mr. Weasley maintains his job at the Ministry) and the Death Eaters are no longer challenged. The problem is that history and human nature inform us that if Voldemort had seized uncontested control of the Ministry, one of the first things he would have done would have been to eliminate the greatest threats to that control, namely the Order. Mr. Weasley would have at least been removed from the Ministry. Explanations may abound, some of them may even make sense, but in the end the lack of interest Rowling showed in addressing these questions leaves the reader with a sense that AdultsAreUseless and All Adults Are Stupid.
*** By letting them keep their normal jobs, Voldie's rubbing their noses in the fact that they failed. Not to mention the fact that he considers just about anyone who's not a threat or an ally beneath his notice.
*** So firing them both was going to make it ''easier'' to keep tabs on them, to see if Harry tried to contact them or their son?
*** Voldemort himself probably didn't bother too much with running the Ministry after setting up his puppet Minister. He wasn't even the one who Imperiused Pius. Voldy probably saw to it that the Ministery was under Death Eater control, got some of his followers planted to keep an eye on things/run everything, and concentrated on stuff like killing Harry.
** And there was a sizable resistance, though it doesn't seem to have been doing very much. Note Radio Harry, and the huge numbers that turn up at the end.
*** The sizable resistance consisted of people, some with ill-repute and others with strong repute, hiding in the shadows doing nothing. Sure, they resisted intellectually, but big deal. Meanwhile, Vold-dude and his cronies killed and enslaved people. There may be good explanations as to the reason why the general wizarding populace didn't rise up in rebellion, but the significant problem is that those explanations were not given in the book. The author did a poor job the author in this regard. In a society as highly educated and sophisticated as the wizarding world, it is very unlikely that a notorious criminal (one so vile, so evil, so undeniably malicious that none but a significant minority dared even mutter his name) could seize control and not be met by a massive uprising. It would be akin to the world's most reknown murderer taking control of a democratic government and no one having the balls to stand up to him (even though numerous members of the armed forces [aka aurors, etc] were opposed to him as well).
**** The explanation was clearly stated within the first few chapters of the book. The wizarding populace is afraid their families will be attacked by Voldemort just like other families have been. And, like most people, they rely upon the government to handle these threats. Even in the US, we would reasonably expect these kinds of things handled by one of the various law enforcement agencies at the national or state levels at the least. Even if civilian assistance were needed, there's the draft. And the Geneva Convention makes distinctions between combatants and civilians and how they are treated.
*** Highly educated? Wizards are, quite frankly, not the brightest lights in the firmament. Don't forget that at age thirteen Harry is taught that the historical witch burnings were "pointless" because none of the '''tens of thousands of victims''' were actual wizards or witches. And this is under Dumbledore supposedly progressive leadership. This is not the sort of thinking that results in population that is inclined to defend itself.
**** Do not get me started on JKR's take on the witch burnings.
**** How can Wizards be highly educated when Hogwarts has no math, science or English teachers? Hell, they don't even have a gymnasium! The real question is why aren't they all fat little functional illiterates?
**** ^ Wizard children are home-schooled, or muggle-public-schooled before getting their letters and going off to boarding school. Besides, they ARE taught math and science and presumably, literature: Potions, Herbology, Arithmancy and some others we probably didn't hear about; why teach them useless Muggle versions, like Algebra and Chemistry? Not to mention, I'm sure that flying and Quidditch involve more physical fitness than just hanging on to a broomstick -- if dodging Peeves and out-racing the moving staircases don't count as exercise.
***** Since when the hell are algebra, chemistry, and other such subjects useless because magic exists? To make things like guns, for example, you need to know the properties of metal, the explosives of gunpowder, and the ballistics of the bullet, which take science and mathematics to know. And that's just a directly practical application; one of the most important things to learn from science, apart from the facts it has discovered, is the thinking of the method itself (the idea of finding evidence and testing hypothesizes and applying Occam's razor and so on). Those would make wizards better thinkers, if nothing else.
*** Yes, and the problem with the Hogwarts subjects is that they consist almost entirely of following directions. They learn how to do the things they're taught to do in class, but there's no non-magical skill-building: no critical thinking, no learning how the natural world works, and so on. The only class they have that isn't all about the direct practical application is History of Magic, and that's all about listening to lectures, not to mention entirely focused on the Wizarding minority. A Hogwarts education is the equivalent of an apprenticeship. They may have learned some basic skills before age 11, but they're not "highly educated" by any stretch of the imagination.
**** It's easy to forget that wizards aren't soldiers. Just because Mrs. Smith has a stick that could create a mushroom cloud doesn't mean she's ever used it for anything more destructive than clearing out the gutters. The schoolchildren have been taught some combat-effective spells because Dumbledore thought it was necessary, not because blowing people to bits is part of an ordinary Wizarding education. Most witches and wizards are ordinary people, not heroes, not adventurers, not shining warriors of the light. They're just people who happen to have magic instead of elbow grease.
***** The Ministry (before its fall) had published free pamphlets on how to use defensive spells and distributed them to all wizarding homes. Therefore, most wizards should be capable of a simple Stunning Spell and should have no problem fighting with magic. So logically, there are thousands of armed citizens that should have been easily able to overwhelm the Death Eaters through sheer numbers, if nothing else.
****** You can't learn to be a duelist from a pamphlet. Umbridge vs Harry Re: Defense Against the Dark Arts in book five should have made that clear.
******* Anyone remember Snape's puzzle from Philospher's Stone? During it, Hermione says something like "Even the greatest wizards have no logic whatsoever," and that is what made it an effective guard for the Stone. I haven't read the book in a while, but the gist seems to be that wizards rely on their powers a bit too much, and looking for answers outside of them is clearly not a strong suit. See also Muggle subjugation of wizards possibly.
** Using ''Inferi''? The ones that can only be created through '''Dark Magic'''? Hmmm, looking mighty suspicious there, new regime. And the fact that Dementors were working for the Ministry even though it was made public that they had joined Voldemort. Wow, how did no one notice that even with all of those creatures, the citizens still had a massive numerical advantage? Plus, they can do magic while those creatures can't. And if a few hundred students managed to drive those same creatures back, how do you think they would hold up against thousands of fully trained adults?
*** I think the answer here pretty much has to be "Because 99% of normal people will not organize and resist when an evil regime comes to power, because they're either scared of dying (Big V is ''really good'' at murdering people), misjudge the threat (Rumor has it that Voldemort can kill you with just a dour look), aren't entirely sure the new regime is worse than the old one (Specifically relevant here, since it's taboo to even speak Voldemort's name, so most of the Wizarding world can't actually ''discuss'' the matter safely. I think someone explains that most people aren't 100% sure that Voldemort really ''has'' taken over), don't think it's their place (He's only going after the mud-bloods), don't realize that most everyone else feels the same way (Sure, they've got numbers on their side. But classic thief's dilemma. If everyone else stays home and doesn't resist, it's a really bad idea for ''me'' to go out and resist; our superior numbers aren't worth much if I'm the only one who shows up), or has better things to do (If I go off and join the order, who's going to look after my wife and kids?
*** There's also something to be said for a regime that has at its disposal creatures capable of inducing the symptoms of depression -- I really don't doubt that the Riddle administration was strategically deploying Dementors to maximize feelings of powerlessness and anxiety (recalling that very few members of the general population would be capable of casting the counter-charm, much less knowing it).
**** The Wizards weren't even sure that Voldemort was capable of dying (as it turns out, he wasn't, but they didn't have all the details). Assaulting a tyrant who is literally invincible is suicide, and not everyone is brave enough to make a suicidal charge to prove a point.
**** So, in a word, it's the Bystander Effect. Nobody does anything because they think everyone else is doing it. Typically, the larger the group of people, the worse the effect gets. An entire nation of people suffering it is brutal.
** The book is told from Harry's point of view. Harry spent about 90% of his quest hiding in forests with Hermione and Ron for company. How do we know that there ''weren't'' more active resistance groups than Potterwatch? It was mentioned that there were witches and wizards who cast defensive magic spells on their Muggle neighbors and we find out later that a good number of students at Hogwarts were actively defying the Carrows and Snape.
* This has to do with why the Creevey brothers were at Hogwarts. I had always assumed that they came when Neville summoned the DA, but in the scene when they're evacuating the younger students, one or both of them is in the great hall with the regular students, not in the room of requirement, and [=McGonnagal=] specifically insists that he evacuate, which suggests she has jurisdiction over him still. However, the Creeveys are muggle-born, so why are they attending school? Wouldn't they have had to have been in hiding up to that point? I know Dean Thomas and others come back for the final fight, but the IJBM is more to do with the fact that they were implied to have been there the whole time.
** It could be that [=McGonnagal=] was using the residual authority she had as acting headmistress - the Creevey brothers did attend school in her house for a number of years, so that "jurisdiction" may have just been force of habit. The Creeveys could have snuck in earlier than the evacuation; people had been arriving all day since Harry arrived, and Minerva was just telling them to forget it and turn back. Alternatively, the Creeveys were simply one of the families to successfully fake their Wizarding heritage in order to attend school.
* How were Squibs treated under the new regime? It seems like they would be hated, being non-magical and a sign of shame, but they also seem like a good way to scapegoat Muggleborns (oh, these thieves stole magic away from the poor, virtuous would-be wizard!).
** It seems like they were probably treated badly; Filch was on Umbridge's side in the fifth book, but was on the light side during the Battle of Hogwarts.
[[/folder]]

[[folder: Voldemort's Final Duel]]
* OK, truly mind-boggling: ''Deathly Hallows''. Voldemort and Harry Potter square off. Harry spends 10 minutes explaining in minute detail exactly why the Elder Wand doesn't work for Voldemort and why it actually belongs to Harry. Then Voldemort proceeds to use a wand ''that he was just told doesn't work'', one that he has already seen evidence that it doesn't work, to try to kill the one person the wand is ''least'' likely to kill. Um, Voldemort? You clearly noted that Harry didn't have his Phoenix wand, so Priori Incantatem (what an Main/AssPull) wouldn't save him. Why not let Harry's Expelliarmus hit, disarm you of a wand you don't own, draw your Wand of Yew, and put that arrogant bastard in the ground? Oh, and then collect the Elder Wand, which would ''then'' belong to you, from the corpse?
** [[Main/DefaultAnswer Because he's just plain stupid]]. He's already tried the Killing Curse several times and it never worked. You'd think he'd try something more imaginative, like Fiendfyre or something. Or better yet, if he'd invested in a Glock, he could've pulled ''that'' out and killed Harry.
*** In a world where the average wizard has enough disrespect for technology that they don't even use ''pencils and paper'', would you seriously expect one of the greatest Muggle haters of all time to be able to admit that the Muggles came up with a better way of killing people?
*** That, and you honestly would believe that a Shield Charm wouldn't stop a bullet? Or Reducto? Or a spell to slow down the bullets or Transfigure the gun or melt it or Summon it or Disarm it from Voldy?
**** I honestly believe that Harry doesn't know how to slow bullets down, transfigure a gun, or melt it and that if Voldemort had just pulled it right out and fired then Harry wouldn't have had TIME to put up a shield charm which may or may not even work against a bullet as it's never been tried that we've seen.
**** Wizards and witches can pull off incredible magic instinctively: in that kind of situation facing a non-magical lethal weapon, Harry is likely to have simply unconsciously vanished the bullets, or shielded himself, or turn the bullets into fluffy kittens with the PowerOfLove... you get the point. Also, if Shield Charms can't stop bullets, how the hell can they save you when you fall hundreds of feet? Or stop arrows-when the caster was a wuss who got beaten to a pulp by a few Disarmed, tied up kids? Or utterly overrun the Muggle world? No, this troper thinks prepared, powerful wizard vs Muggle with gun=no contest. Protego beforehand, Expelliarmus during, then Stupefy, and all would be over. Not to mention the "instinctive magic" bit.
**** Wait, how is ''Priori Incantatem'' an AssPull? The wands are brothers, and the wielders are closely connected as well (even sharing each other's souls and flesh in some ways.) The reverse magic makes sense, and it was also established early in the series, not whipped out in the last chapter of the last book.
**** It was an AssPull when it was whipped out of nowhere near the end of the ''fourth'' book, which I believe is what the above troper was referring to. Yes, the ''deliberate'' form of P.I. was introduced earlier in book four, but it has very little connection with the whole "brother wands don't work against each other", which had ''no set-up whatever''.
***** It was more a matter of foreshadowing that was built up from the first book when Olivander comments on the importance of Harry having a brother wand to Voldemort. In the same fourth book he shows up again to remind us of this importance. It wasn't an AssPull it was just subtle, and it brought about a very uncommon instance of magic that no one would have mentioned due to the fact that Voldemort was "dead" and his wand was gone.
** As Harry would then both own and wield the Elder Wand, Voldemort wouldn't win that way.
*** But in the time it takes for Harry to actually catch the Elder Wand (Expelliarmus is not equivalent to Accio Wand; it just knocks the wand out of their hands. Among other things), Voldemort can be drawing his Yew wand. And ''Avada Kadevra'' can't be stopped by normal magical means, so as long as Harry's distracted by trying to catch the Elder Wand in mid-flight, he won't notice the Death Curse until it's too late for him to find cover. Granted, even if Voldemort pulled this off, I guarantee no less than 3 ''Avada Kadevra''s would nail him from the surrounding crowd (Neville, Ron, and Ginny) before he had too much time to gloat.
**** What I think a lot of you are forgetting is that Harry can't (well, shouldn't) be able to die at this point. Remember how Harry was a horcrux for Voldie? Well, Voldie was a horcrux for Harry too. That's why Harry was able to come back. But Voldie hadn't died since becoming Harry's horcrux, so even if Harry had been hit with another Avada Kadevra, he'd probably been able to come back. But that's not the point. The point is that Voldie is a vain S.O.B that has the market cornered on the whole God Complex front, so why would he believe some brat that's telling him HIS wand isn't his?
** "Hey, you know, you can't possibly hurt me with that gun, so you might as well not try". Just because Harry told him it wouldn't work doesn't mean he should believe him. Although it would have been smart to test his theory with a lighter spell than "instant death", for once in his life.
*** I don't have the book in front of me, but doesn't Harry say something like "It all comes down to whether or not the Elder Wand knows I disarmed another wand from it's last master?" when explaining things to Voldemort? So even if Voldemort believed what Harry was saying, perhaps he was willing to take the chance on trying anyway.
*** This proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that Voldemort is the reincarnation of the [[PrinceOfSpace Phantom of Krankor]]. And Harry himself is the Prince of Space.
** Weren't we told that Voldemort abandoned his old wand in favor of the unbeatable wand? Who's to say he had it with him at all? He obviously hadn't read the EvilOverlordList well before this moment so he wouldn't have a back up weapon when his super powered weapon is declared useless.
** Because that was Voldemort's huge flaw - he was insanely powerful and twisted and cunning to a degree, but then became extremely paranoid about being defeated. His first downfall at Harry's hands more or less made him crazy and overconfident about certain things. Plus, Dumbledore tells Harry that Voldemort never takes the time to learn about things he doesn't think are important. That's why he doesn't think that it's stupid to use a House Elf to hide the locket and that's why he doesn't think it's worth actually figuring out ''why'' he can't successfully curse Harry to death instead of just ''how'' to do it.
** All of the above, plus one thing: Voldemort is so self-confident that if you tell him exactly what he must do to be killed, he'll do that to prove he is stronger than you think and can survive that. That's what he did with the prophecy. Else, he would have sent a dozen Death Eaters to kill Harry and parents, and same for Neville. And no Harry Potter series.
[[/folder]]

[[folder: Wand Disarmament]]
* Does anyone else agree that ''Deathly Hallows'' was purely driven by the [[AWizardDidIt Magical]] {{Phlebotinum}} {{Ass Pull}}? I mean really. My biggest problem is the whole "allegiance of wands" bit that allowed Harry to defeat Voldemort. The Trio, Dumbledore's Army and the members of the dueling club in Book 2 ''have been disarming each other for years,'' and never before have their wands changed allegiance. Harry himself has been disarmed more times than I can remember (once caught of guard by Neville, I think) and his phoenix-feather wand served him the same way as it '''always''' did, right up until Book 7, when it got snapped in half. So since when, exactly, does Disarming anyone win you their wand? And how in hell did JKR pass off that crap at the end? Harry Disarmed Draco in Malfoy Manor, so the wand that Draco had Disarmed (but did not have on his person at that time and therefore was subject to none of the effects of the spell)changed its allegiance to Harry, despite the fact that Draco had Disarmed it nearly a year prior, had not seen ever since and held no allegiance to it. ''What?!'' And the whole "part of Volemort's soul was in Harry and part of Harry's soul was in Voldemort" thing had its plotholes as well. When Voldy's Avada Kedavra rebounded on him, shouldn't it have killed the bit of Harry that was still in Voldemort and allowed him to return, just as Harry had done minutes prior? Oh, and the Epilogue was crap. Just saying.
** Not exactly sure, but the way I see it, is that the Elder Wand is the trickiest wand. Your own personal wand won't necessarily just leave you, because it has stronger ties to you than the Elder Wand does. The EW goes with the person who has the most power, its not about individual respect/loyalty, like a normal wand would. "The wand chooses the wizard", and if during a duel, your wand decides to say with you, that's the wand's choice. Even when other people have gained the allegiance of someone else's wand (when Harry had Draco's original wand), it didn't work perfectly for him. It would have soon gone back to Draco. The wand doesn't always decide to leave you. The EW is just more easily swayed to a different master.
*** Furthermore, the dueling club and the DA were for practicing spells, not actual fights, and no one technically claimed any wands they took, they gave them back to the original owners.
*** "The Elder Wand is the trickiest wand." Yes, the Elder Wand was made specifically by Death to screw with the oldest brother and everyone down the line. Other wands, not being made by a vengeful supernatural entity, wouldn't switch hosts.
**** The wand is probably not supernatural (well, anymore supernatural than other magic). Dumbledore gives the much more sensible explanation that the whole Death thing is a myth, and the hallows are just legendarily powerful magical objects created by a trio of genius brothers.
** Except that it was also established that physically taking or handing over wands was enough to also change their allegiance. So yes, the students had been disarming themselves for ages, but they never ''kept'' the wands after. For example, in the third book, Lupin disarms Harry and takes his wand. At that point, he was technically the owner of it. He then ''gives it back'' to Harry, and thus Harry is made the owner once more.
** What about the AssPull of the "Deathly Hallows" themselves too? So much of the backstory (including the bit that apparently ''everyone but the main protagonists'' knew about wands changing owners) would have been much better spread out (or hinted at (better?)) in previous books. Hermione notes at one point she'd wondered about Harry's invisibility cloak, but... Never mentioned it? And no one else mentioned it, even with the occurrence of other invisibility cloaks (other than them mentioned as being generally rare to find)? And we never had any hints about Dumbledore's past being connected to all these things? (Aside from the practically throw-away line about him returning the invisibility cloak to Harry.) It just seemed like the entire book was a damn AssPull with poor-to-no foreshadowing, and some rather massive changes/revelations (take your pick) about how one of the fundamentals of magic (wands) work. The sixth book was a bit better, but it got a little into AssPull territory with the massive infodumps on Snape and Voldemort... I mean, maybe JK Rowling planned it all out, but she should have ''spread'' it out too.
*** I'm going to go ahead and call {{Retcon}} about Harry's Invisibility Cloak being the only "real" one. In ''GobletOfFire'', Barty Crouch has one. It is mentioned several times during TheReveal: Barty Jr. used it during the World Cup to hide in the stands, again when he attacked Krum and his father, and also when he buried his father's body. Until the seventh book, I was under the assumption that Invisibility Cloaks, while rare, were acknowledged by most to ''really exist'' in the wizarding world (as opposed to being considered a legend).
**** It's not a retcon. You're misunderstanding the relevence of the Deathly Hallow Cloak. Its ability never deteriorates over time like all other cloaks do. In fact it's mentioned that Mad Eye has at least two invisibility cloaks probably because one's usefulness has deteriorted. Harry's cloak is just a very well made one or if the legend is true Death's own Invisibility Cloak and all the other rare ones are just not as well made imitations.
***** The thing that makes it such an AssPull that Harry's cloak is a Deathly Hallow (rather than merely a high-quality example of an invisibility cloak) is that there are so many forms of magic that it ''doesn't'' conceal the wearer from. Moody's magical eye, for example, is presumably a very rare artifact (if for no other reason than that the demand for magical X-ray eyes is surely quite low), but it's no Hallow. So why is it fully capable of seeing Harry under his cloak, if it's so much better than other invisibility cloaks? Why can Dementors see him under a cloak that's supposed to hide him from Death itself?
** There is an essential difference between the useless, ordinary invisibilitiy cloaks of Crouch, Moody etc. versus Harry's super-dooper Hallow forged by Death '''himself''': DD, Crouch, Mrs Norris, Snape etc can see through the super-dooper cloak; but no-one can see through useless ordinary cloaks. Muggles like me are so morally and racially inferior that we think an invisibility cloak that people cannot see through is better.
****** There is a theory going around that Moody's eye was enchanted by Dumbledore using the Elder Wand (thus the balancing of the hallows and also explains why Dumbledore can see through the cloak) in order to allow it to see through the Invisibility Cloak. The Dementors don't see Harry through the cloak they can sense his emotions. Also it's sometimes brought up that the whole myth behind the deathly hallows is in fact fiction and the true story is the brothers were just really good at crafting items.
**** Is there anywhere prior to Book 7 where it is suggested that invisibility cloaks wear out? Otherwise, I think the {{Retcon}} call is fair. Yes, Mad Eye had two, but Mad Eye was a paranoid nutcase who keeps about seven dark-wizard detecting gadgets at all times, so the mere fact he had two isn't a suggestion he was worried one might wear out.
***** There's nowhere specifically in the canon, but prior to the seventh book and shortly after the sixth was released JK revealed that the number one question she was never asked was "Why did Dumbledore have James's Invisibility Cloak?" which would hint that it's more than it seems as far back as book one.
** Wasn't Rowling putting {{Chekhovs Gun}}s throughout ''the entire series''? Sometimes the only difference between that and an AP is when it's introduced.
*** The main difference between {{Chekhov's Gun}} and an AssPull is that {{Chekhov's Gun}} makes sense when you think about it and remember the subtle introduction earlier in the story.
** Where did you get the impression that part of Harry's soul was in Voldemort from? Voldemort had some of Harry's blood in him, and some of the magic that protected Harry from Voldemort, but that wouldn't have helped him survive Avada Kedavra; the blood magic was geared towards protecting ''Harry'' not Voldemort. Agree that things like the whole wand allegiances, Deathly Hallows and the like could have been foreshadowed better though; those things seemed to come out of nowhere, I didn't suspect a thing about the Invisibility Cloak until Deathly Hallows.
*** Dumbledore really got his suspicions confirmed in Chamber of Secrets. He was suspicious once he heard about Harry sensing Voldemort's presence; his scar hurting when he was nearby he'd never heard about anything about that no doubt. The fact that he had proof that Voldemort used Horcruxes made the theory all but confirmed after all it wouldn't be that too far out when dealing with uncommon magic like Horcruxes.
*** Oh, I agree that Rowling foreshadowed Harry being a Horcrux (and the Horcruxes in general) long before books 6 and 7. In Chamber of Secrets Harry actually asks if he has a piece of Voldemort in him, and Dumbledore confirms that he does. Nobody ever said that Voldemort had a piece Harry in him though - he had some of Harry's blood but not his soul, the connection between them was 100% down to the piece of Voldemort's soul in Harry. It's the other stuff, like the Hallows and the wand allegiances thing that weren't foreshadowed enough. I mean, did ''anyone'' suspect Harry's invisibility cloak was in some way unusual before Deathly Hallows, or that Dumbledore's wand was anything special. Sure, he could do some amazing stuff with it, in particular during his duel with Voldemort in [=OotP=], but before Deathly Hallows I thought it was all Dumbledore. They should have made some mention of the Elder Wand before book 7 - if not as the Elder Wand then by its better-known names, like the Deathstick or Wand of Destiny. Hermione says in Deathly Hallows that Binns mentioned those wands in class, but when?
** In response to the above 'disarming each other' thing, please note part of Harry's TheReasonYouSuckSpeech to Voldemort: Dumbledore and Snape specifically planned that Snape would disarm Dumbledore, so '''his wand would be taken with his knowledge and blessing'''. Harry himself also states that overpowering Malfoy and taking his wand was what transferred its, and by extension the Elder Wand's, allegiance. The DA meetings didn't do jack for allegiance because all members were perfectly fine with being disarmed by each other.
** There's also the comment about how a captured wand will bend its will. A wand wouldn't really be bending to another wizard's will unless they started using it. So if Person A disarmed Person B and pocketed the wand or handed it back to Person B, it'd be no harm, no foul. If Person A disarmed Person B and then started using Person B's wand, ''that'' would be bending the wand to Person A's will.
** I wondered about this too, but the disarmament thing is explained in "The Flaw in the Plan." Snape didn't become master of the elder wand after defeating Dumbledore because he killed Dumbledore with permission, and therefore he wasn't taking the wand against Dumbledore's will. Likewise, in the dueling club and the DA meetings, the kids were disarming each other with permission, so the wand wouldn't shift loyalties then, either. Seems like kind of an ass-pull, though, that winning a wand from someone means you win EVERY wand the person might have.
[[/folder]]

[[folder: Luna's Bedroom Wall]]
* Luna's wall in Deathly Hallows. Am I the only one who thinks that was absolutely frakking creepy? If I had my friends painted on the wall I wouldn't have friends anymore. I like Luna, but her creepy wall was way too much.
** Uh... why? It's not as if she'd painted them naked and doing unspeakable things to each other or anything like that, the painting was just a normal group portrait of people she considered to be her friends. It's common for Muggles to have pictures of their loved ones on their walls, it's just that these pictures are generally framed and hanging loose on said walls instead of being painted directly on. Luna's method was a little unorthodox, sure, but I can't see what's so creepy about it.
** Hmm ... Luna's wall. Put yourself in Harry's situation. You're going into the room of someone who is, at best, a vague acquaintance. What's the first thing you see? A ceiling with a huge picture of your face on it. Maybe I and the original poster are trope overdosed, but that kind of Reveal is normally the province of stalkers and other obsessive creeps. All that was missing was a shrine.
*** First off, by this time Luna is not just a vague acquaintance. While they didn't hang out ''that'' much, I think Harry considers her a friend. Secondly, I guess this is just her substitute for having photographs of her friends, which is quite normal. Obviously she has a talent for painting and therefore preferred this. Finally, while it may be kind of weird for a regular person, this is Luna we're talking about, and Harry is well aware of her eccentricities. Considering in the sixth book, she made his uncomfortable by saying the D.A was like having real friends, my bet is that the fact that she now considers him and the others to be her ''real'' friends is, to him, more touching than it is creepy.
*** Considering one of Harry's kids has Luna's name as middle name (Lily Luna Potter), I hope he doesn't consider her a stranger. And by this point, Luna's risked her life a few times by Harry, Ron and Herminone's sides (at the department of Mysteries and defending Hogwarts from deatheaters when Dumbledore died). Considering the other weird stuff Luna does, the wall thing actually struck me more as heartwarming then weird. That and I know quite a few artsy people who would do that kind of stuff.
**** Agreeing with the evidence of 'Lily Luna Potter'. While I also found this very creepy in the book, I think perhaps Rowling just failed to show us how close Harry felt to Luna. It's evident from 'Lily Luna' that he and Ginny consider her important and close enough that they gave their child her name, even over using Hermione's name. Let's also think objectively; no, most friends (even very best best friends) would not paint their friends' faces gigantically on their walls. We would probably find this bizarre in Ron or Hermione's room (though their personalities wouldn't lend themselves to it anyway, I suppose). But obviously Harry considers her very close - he also considers Ginny very close, but she's left out of a TON of things and doesn't have a significantly stronger presence than Luna in the books. Though I guess the fact that this isn't creepy in-universe makes me wonder why people expect Snape's love to have been treated as though it were creepy. This is much more obsessive and bizarre than continuing to love someone after their death, and doesn't have the added level of guilt that probably drove much of his choice to fight and die in Lily's name. But even he didn't paint gigantic portraits of her in his house. Rowling obviously feels that Luna's presence was much more important to Harry than perhaps how she came across to many fans, and as such he didn't react to it as being an overestimation of their relationship, and more a touching reminder of how much she cares about him and the other DA members.
***** Couldn't 'Luna' as a middle name also be a nod to Lupin?
** Consider what she said in Half-Blood Prince "I enjoyed the meetings too. It was like having friends." From this statement, we can assume that was nobody in the school she considered to be her friends even as far as the beginning of her sixth year. Harry and company are pretty much the only people in the school Luna considers friends, and even that took a long time from their first meeting at the beginning of the fifth year. It's only reasonable she feels so much emotion towards them, and she just expresses her feelings through her artistic talent. Also, Luna is either completely unaware or dismissive of many social norms, so I assume she either doesn't know or doesn't care that people might see her wall as "creepy."
*** Having known people like her (friendless for a long time) this really doesn't surprise me. People like that tend to be socially awkward due to not having anyone to compare their behavior to. They also may try too hard to gain friendship, which causes them to do weird things. Add that to a weird father and an artistic talent and you have this situation.
** What makes it creepy is that she did not ASK to do that. I love my friends but they have to ask to take my picture, let alone do what Luna did, weird or not.
*** ...But I thought she ''painted'' them, not took their picture.
*** Speaking as an artist, I use my friends as models...I don't ask, I just tell them to stay still and shush!
**** When I was in high school I had several friends who were artists, and they used me as a model a few times without asking. But they sketched me on paper or painted me on canvas, and they always showed me afterward. Never did they paint a giant image of me on their bedroom wall without even mentioning to me 'oh, yeah, I immortalized you on my bedroom wall where I stare into your face every night as I fall asleep'.
*** Painting a picture is different from actually taking a picture, the latter implies that you were following the subject around and recording stuff from their lives without their permission. Most people would consider that invasion of privacy. You do not need to stalk someone like that to paint them, that is the difference.
* I'm surprised no one has pointed out that Luna has been ostracized for all her years at Hogwarts. Even Ron calls her "Loony" and looks at her patronizingly. Only Ginny, Hermione and Harry (and the people painted on her wall, probably) have ever sincerely treated her with respectful affection. And we can tell that before these people, she'd never, ever had a friend before, and hadn't had the chance to develop social skills. For all we know, it's perfectly normal to her and the others just expect this kind of ... interesting ... behavior, since the majority of social interaction Luna has had has been bullying. My heart actually wrenched for Luna when I read about the "friends" and the portraits on her wall. Poor Luna.
[[/folder]]

[[folder: Wizarding Prejudice]]
* I really felt like JKR copped out in book 7. She'd been setting up the Wizarding World--especially the Ministry--as having some serious problems that just get swept under the table: Sirius' lack of a trial, the laws against werewolves, the marginalization of Muggle rights, the lack of a responsible/reliable source of information that wasn't outright propaganda. None of these problems were Voldemort's fault, but JKR seems to want us to believe that simply by having Harry defeat the Dark Lord everything's coming up roses. The ultimate example was Umbridge: in book 5, she's a petty bureaucrat who is evil, but it's a human evil based on stupidity, small malice and a very large sense of self-importance. (She seems to be fairly typical of the wizarding government.) When Umbridge shows up again in ''Deathly Hollows'' she's made the transition from a human evil to the Death Eaters evil (the kind of outright mustache-twirling tie-me-to-the-train-tracks evil that Voldemort represents), and therefore there's no need for the Wizarding World to change itself. Because, see, Umbridge wasn't ''really'' an ordinary little human evil taking advantage of a poorly designed system, she was a great evil black magic Death Eater evil just waiting for her chance to show her true colors.
** Umbridge makes the hard-left turn from "Zealous Bureaucrat" into "Evil Tyrant" during Book 5. It was barely concealed in the first place, given her willingness to torture and attempt to murder children.
** "she's a petty bureaucrat who is evil, but it's a human evil based on stupidity, small malice and a very large sense of self-importance" You forgot to mention absolute power over childern. The only difference in bk7 is that she has absolute power over adults too. Umbridge disproves Lord Acton's Aesop, she was ALWAYS evil. The only difference is that she has enough power to achieve the "Greater Good". YMMV, I would call becoming a tyrant a "hard-right turn" because of ThoseWackyNazis.
*** Plus, there's the fact that it was ''illegal'' at the time for her to round up and threateningly imprison Muggleborns. It was made pretty clear that she was a cowardly bigot who went after anything she considered not fully wizard if she could get away with it (like werewolves or mermaids). Suddenly in book seven, she's told "hey, these people are "thieves" who need to be punished. Have at 'em".
** Who says it's so much better? It'd be a lot more ''stable'', what with the biggest known threat to the entire world being ''dead''.
*** She ends up in Azkaban, by WordOfGod. Detailing all the problems which needed to be sorted, and how they were fixed would have taken years. This story is at heart about how Harry fought Voldemort, nothing else.
***** For the sake of the "Greater Good", Harry forgives Snape, Malfoys, Dursleys, DD etc. I think Harry would forgive Umbridge. Suppose she does go to Ashkaban guarded by Dementors. How long would it take for her to recruit Dementors to her own army?
****** I'm not sure Harry would forgive Umbridge. He never felt the same sympathy for her that he felt for the others. Snape, while a petty, vindictive man, fought for the good side. After seeing Snape's pensive, he understands the bullying and love for Lily that drove Snape to be who he became. Harry had known Draco Malfoy since he was 11 years old and had witnessed his hesitation/misery when forced to do bad things. The Dursleys were horrible and abusive, but they are family and, as JRK mentioned, Dudley has also been abused, in a way. And their reactions are mostly motivated by fear and old hurt. While they are fairly terrible people, Harry understands them and can sympathize. Umbridge doesn't repent and, if she has a tragic backstory, Harry doesn't know it. Just because he can forgive some morally ambiguous people in his life doesn't mean he's going to let all the former Death Eaters roam free (supposing it is up to him).
***** Bks 1-6 are about issues in Wizarding World which make it so easy for a Dark Lord to seize State Power; bk7 is all about Harry. All was well. Epilogue: WW had all the same issues, Albus severus Potter is set up as the next Dark Lord. Albus loves his Dad, Harry is safe from the next Dark Lord. It's all about Harry. All is well because all the Ravens and Huffs and Humans and Goblins whom Albus will kill don't matter.
***** "Detailing all the problems which needed to be sorted, and how they were fixed would have taken years" It is 19 years later, all we need is for Hermione to smile, "We are making progress: Mudbloods are 70% free, Werewolves are 60% free, Goblins are 50% free, Centaurs 40%, Elves 30%, Humans 20% free." We don't expect perfection, all we ask for is SOME progress. All we ask is that all this stuff made a difference.
***** WordOfGod asserts that Kingsley becomes Minister for Life. I like and trust book!Kingsley. I would vote for him; interview!Kingsley abolishes elections.
**** That's true, the story IS about how Harry fought Voldemort. And from the start, the divide is
drawn between the two, and the entire series is staged as a battle between good and evil. But I think simplifying it in this way is a bit of a cop-out in itself. Yes, ultimately, she told the battle that we have been expecting from book one: Harry vs Voldemort. But along the way she spent a great deal of time exploring other issues that were not entirely forgotten, but which could have been resolved in a bit of a more satisfying way.
***** A terrific example is Hermione's whole SPEW movement and the mistreatment of House Elves. This is something initially shown to be a fairly black and white issue; Malfoys are evil, Malfoys are evil to Dobby, Dobby betrays them to help Harry, Hermione sees that House Elf enslavement is wrong. The reader sees this as well. But the situation is more complex, isn't it? Sirius is betrayed by Kreacher BECAUSE of his abuse of Kreacher. That is a very important thing for the reader as well as Harry to understand. Sirius is a good character, he was a hero to Harry, Harry loved him, and according to Dumbledore was usually kind to House Elves. But that doesn't make his abuse of Kreacher any different than what Dobby received from the Malfoys. And Kreacher betrayed him for that exact same reason. In this instance you see that the righteous INTENTS of a character do not diminish the impact of their actions on people that suffer for it; Sirius wants to be good, and he is good much of the time, but that doesn't make his abuse easier on Kreacher nor does it mean he is excused for it. And it has huge, tragic consequences. If this were to be a plain-and-simple Harry vs Voldemort story, there would be no sense in bringing in such issues that are completely independent of that, and to give them such significant presence in the series. But this isn't explained or solved by the end - House Elves are still enslaved, and one of Harry's last thoughts of the battle are about getting Kreacher to make him food. This is confusing and not a very tactful way to end that plotline.
**** Additionally, the propaganda issues and the ultimate power of the Ministry ARE kind of touched on. It's obvious to Harry and the Order that the Ministry is being controlled by the DE, but they are a tiny fraction of the community. The DE are using 'cunning' to get things done, they have infiltrated the Ministry and taken control of politicians the public have already become familiar with and trusted to a certain degree. By the time people are being overtly persecuted, it's too late to consider getting control of the Ministry in any tactical way, because there are too many DE influences there. On top of which, the Order's tiny size as well as its lack of military presence is probably a huge issue when it comes to public support. Remember the first war, when the Order wasn't able to prevent the hundreds of deaths that were happening? That the Order were LOSING when miracle baby Harry felled the Dark Lord where the vast majority of the Order had died in the process of trying to do that very thing? Why would they trust the Order now, when the DE are everywhere and they're not hearing any news of successful resistance? People resist if they have the fibre to do it on their own, but the majority of civilians are too scared to do that. This is one of the issues with the society that IS kind of explored. But how this issue is solved after Voldemort's Death is not really discussed; the issues with the Ministry and the news publications would still have existed at the end of the series, but we're expected to think they were somehow just fixed later.
**** One last issue is that, while the meat of the plot is about Harry vs Voldemort, the actual POINT of the story is about the evils of racism, prejudice, and violence toward the 'other'. The only reason that Voldemort could ever GET followers was because there was that racism to begin with, and the racism of those characters is tolerated to the point that they're even able to get public office is only because there is an undercurrent of prejudice in the wider wizard community. We see this from the way they talk about Muggles to the way they use Obliviate on any muggle that sees anything suspect, while the use of Obliviate against Ron and Harry by Lockhart is treated as True Evil. In either situation it is to protect the caster, not for the benefit of the victim, but one is acceptable and the other isn't. This is a significant issue that is never fully addressed, and killing Voldemort isn't going to 'fix' it. Racism existed before he was born, before he came to power, and it will continue to exist afterward. The death of the Dark Lord doesn't equal the death of the traditions and beliefs that gave him the power to begin with. This in particular is a somewhat abrasive omission on Rowling's part.
**** I don't understand the problem with the Wizarding World's societal ills. They're SOCIETAL ILLS. These things take decades to change, through education and social reform. There wasn't any way for Rowling to resolve this in the book without seeming contrived. These social problems were made clearer than they had been before (in universe), and the ultimate, most horrible result of this prejiduce and corruption, Voldemort and the Death Eaters, was burned into the collective consciousness more than ever before and then met their end. This is a point from which they can move on and make real changes. It's the beginning of social change, not the result.
* Was anybody else bothered by what an unmitigated blood bath ''Deathly Hallows'' was? Yes, I know it's a war, there are bound to be casualties, but the eventual body count was in my view completely unnecessary. The most glaring examples were Lupin and Tonks, presumably - as another troper has commented - to make the series begin and end with an orphaned boy, but what was the point in bumping off Colin Creevey, for instance? And why the ruddy heck wasn't Umbridge bumped off in a suitably horrific fashion?
** Rowling wanted to convey how chaotic a real war with magic would be.
** Because there is never a meaning in death. People don't choose who gets offed in real life either, there will always be random deaths. Rowling just wanted to portray real life by showing that anyone can die or stay alife no matter how much they deserve the former or latter.
** The gray morality of the final book contributes to Umbridge not being killed off. If she had died, it would have been been a too convenient closure, the same as if the good guys had all majesticallty survived.
** And about Colin, hey, it ain't called AnyoneCanDie for nothing.
** At least there WAS a final battle whick took place, and no bullshit anticlimax like Twilight.
** Just to answer the question in the original post: Yes, this troper was bothered. Very much so. The entire book was basically nothing more than a giant kill-fest, with the deaths of Hedwig and Dobby being the most jarring and insulting ones (to the characters). Also, why resolving the conflicts between Lupin and Tonks when they are killed later anyway? Portraying the reality of war well and good, but that bit was just bad story-telling.
*** Hedwig, at least: This is very early in the last book, and it's "serious". Before Harry's always had his owl with him, when she's not carrying messages at least, and now he hasn't. And with Dobby; he was helping them, but it killed him. It's dangerous now, and anyway, life sucks. As for the last one, if you take it further, why bother trying to be happy when you're just gonna die in a fairly short time anyway? Why do anything?
**** Hedwig had possibly the most pointless death in the whole book. What was Harry thinking keeping her in a cage and trying to flee on a broomstick that he knew would probably be attacked by Death Eaters? Why couldn't he have let her out to fly like he does half the time during the rest of the series?
**** You have to remember, at that point they had seven Harry's who were all supposed to look exactly alike. Having Hedwig in a cage was the only way he could remain identical- letting her out to fly would have drawn the Death Eaters to him.
*** Dobby has always been taking dangerous risks to help Harry. In Deathly Hallows, those risks finally caught up with him. That's the thing about dangerous risks; you don't always make it through okay. As for Lupin and Tonks, you ask why bother making things up between them? Because they didn't know they were going to die! Death strikes without warning and without concern for who you are and what you are doing. It is cold, merciless, and absolute. When death comes for you, you go, whether you deserve to or not. Lupin and Tonks making amends had everything to do with the fact that they weren't planning on dying in the Battle of Hogwarts. They wanted to have a future together. Death coming out of nowhere to cut that future short is, unfortunately, simply what it does.
[[/folder]]


[[folder: Sirius Inherits Grimmauld Place]]
* Sirius inherited his family's house, even though his mother Walburga disowned him. Why would she leave everything to her disowned son instead of relatives in good standing like Bellatrix or Narcissa?
** Probably for similar reasons that Sirius - a convicted, ''escaped'' criminal - could freely access his Gringotts account: the folks in charge of such things don't particularly care.
*** Did he ever access Gringotts as a criminal? During his escape he more or less lived as a dog...and did the same in Goblet of Fire...In [=OotP=], he was in his house the whole time, but he never really left to get things, what with Order members coming and going, bringing things in. If he did have an inherited account, he never had the opportunity to use it.
*** Yes, he somehow accessed his Gringotts account to get Harry his Firebolt. He says that he "did it in Harry's name" or something.
*** He ordered the owl from the post office in Harry's name IIRC. He doesn't say how he withdrew the money from his Gringotts account.
*** He says that he got Crookshanks to take the order to the place, and it's very likely that he put the number of the vault on the form.
** Well, when did she die? Assuming it was after his incarceration, they probably put him back into their will because he "redeemed" himself enough in their eyes. What with "being a death eater, killing a loyal friend of James Potter, as well as 12 muggles." If it was before, I stand just as baffled.
** Where I come from, children always have the right to inherit from their parents, regardess of what the parents think of it. Why shouldn't there be a similar law in the wizarding world?
** Did it go through her? I thought it went Walburga > Regulus > Sirius > Harry.
*** Except Regulus died before his mother. Kreacher says so in Book 7, how she was heartbroken but Kreacher couldn't explain what happened coz Regulus forbade him to.
*** One, Kreacher's insane, and two, he's a known liar.
**** Harry commanded him to tell the truth.
**** Could Kreacher have been referring to Mrs. Black's portrait?
*** Another possible theory is that the Black family traditions are archaic enough that the head of the family must always be male, at which point the job lands on Sirius the instant Regulus dies.
** Possibly inheritance law doesn't work for Wizards as it does for Muggles. Dumbledore was concerned that, despite the fact that Sirius had left all his worldly possessions to Harry, it was possible that he wasn't able to inherit as a half-blood. Magic seems to be woven throughout every aspect of Wizarding life; it's very possible that Sirius' inheritance was simply unavoidable because of some centuries-old forgotten spell. Remember that this is the same series that features a binding ''magical'' contract in book four.
*** Hilariously, Sirius might have inherited the family fortune ''because'' he was sent to Azkaban. In other words, his family un-disowned him after it was publicly believed that Sirius had switched his allegiance to Voldemort and betrayed the Potters to him. (Remember, the only people at this point in time who know for certain who the traitor was are Sirius himself, the disembodied evil spirit, and the guy hiding in the rat cage.)
**** Except that's not what happened, as Kreacher himself makes it clear that Sirius never went back in his parents' good books. He mentions repeatedly how Sirius "broke his mother's heart with his lawless ways" but never mentions Sirius having re-gained his parent's good standing.
***** Well, this ''is'' Kreacher we're talking about. You really think he'd so much as mention anything ''good'' that Sirius might have done?
****** If he was back in the family's good graces? I think Kreacher would have treated Sirius as a member of the family instead of a dishonored rogue.
***** This sounds like Sirius-fan-talk to me. Harry and his friends have the same 'lawless ways' as Sirius, and have no respect for anyone in the family other than Sirius (and then Regulus). They're fighting against Voldemort and Hermione is a muggleborn. If Kreacher cared so much about the 'honor' of the family, he would not help them any more than their direct orders required, like with Sirius, and may have even openly betrayed them. The difference is that they treat Kreacher with kindness where Sirius' terrible memories of his life in that house caused him to treat Kreacher with abuse, in spite of usually being kind to House Elves (according to Dumbledore, who also said "I do not think that Sirius took me very seriously, or that he ever saw Kreacher as a being with feelings as acute as a human's."). Yes, Sirius did not hate House Elves on principle, but he was terrible to Kreacher which is why Kreacher hated him. I'd hate someone who treated me that way, too, regardless of how they treated others. Harry can easily forgive Sirius these things because Kreacher is indoctrinated with purist propaganda and because he loves Sirius and knows Sirius' redeeming qualities, but that stuff will never matter to the victim of the abuse, who will not forgive the wrongs done to them just because Sirius is nice to others.
** Just because Bellatrix shared Mrs. Black's political views about Muggleborns doesn't have to mean they ''liked'' each other. Walburga seems to have been a shrewish, judgmental bitch, so might well have hated '''all''' her relatives for one reason or another.
*** Plus, it was implied that while the Blacks were pureblood supremacists who initially supported Voldemort, they backed out when they found out how crazy his plans really were. It's possible that Sirius' mother [[EvenEvilHasStandards thought Bellatrix and the Malfoys were ''too'' crazy]]. Or, she could have ended up just as demented as her portrait suggested and thus wasn't fit to change her will at all.
** Do we know for sure that Mrs. Black ''had'' a will? If not, then presumably Sirius would have inherited as her next of kin, no matter how she felt about it.
[[/folder]]

[[folder: The Epilogue]]
* It just bugs me that so many people disliked the epilogue to the seventh book- I mean, come ''on'', Harry Potter spent the first ''ten'' years of his life being emotionally and sometimes physically abused (starvation) by his ''family'', and then the next ''seven'' years as a ChosenOne with a BigBad who kept trying to kill him, and he ''never'' really got a break, and ''finally'', after everything is over, he gets a happy ending. I mean, I would get it if he didn't ''deserve'' his HappilyEverAfter, but after everything he had gone through... Or is this just a case of "TrueArtIsAngsty" with a side of {{Fandumb}} and ShipToShipCombat?
** While I disliked the Epilogue a lot on first reading (it was very, very cheesy), overall I think it really drives home some of the things that Rowling wanted out of the final book. Especially the role of Dumbledore and Snape - people still argue about [[RonTheDeathEater teh evil Snape]] all over the place (and of course a lot of people also [[DracoInLeatherPants forgive every one of his wildly numerous flaws]]) and these two ridiculous extremes are both CompletelyMissingThePoint of a grey character of such importance. But it is very clear what Rowling INTENDED with the mentions of them in this scene. What bothers me more than people hating the chapter is the specifics of what people hate, and I always hear people bitch about 'Albus Severus' and how much Harry hated Snape and how OMGCRAZY it is that he named a kid after him. This in spite of what he found out about Snape; if we're going to attack fanfic writers who portray Snape as TheWoobie, we should probably take a good close look at the source material. Rowling couldn't have woobiefied him more than she did in the whole of his backstory without derailing the focus of the plot - Harry. Still, it seems obvious to me that for both his sons, Harry is displaying his forgiveness of others. He forgives his father and Sirius most easily, because he already loves them unconditionally, but had to face some really horrible immoral things from them that, let's remember, created something of a moral crisis in him. But he owes nothing more to Dumbledore than he does to Snape. Both of them gave him the tools he needed to defeat Voldemort (in equal amounts, in fact) and ultimately died to protect him. But both of them were damaging to him, too. The reveal that Dumbledore had been grooming him to walk willingly to slaughter is a huge betrayal of the love and safety Harry associated with Dumbledore, particularly considering the casual way in which Dumbledore speaks of it. And Snape was freaking awful to Harry. But Harry forgives them both and pays tribute to their personal sacrifices and the fact that they shaped who he is as a person more significantly than any other adults. It really rubs me the wrong way when people act as if Dumbledore's being a namesake is a given and natural and acceptable where they think that Snape as a namesake isn't. Obviously that whole scene is about Harry giving redemption to the most polarizing characters in the series, James, Sirius, Dumbledore and Snape, and saying that they were all crucially important to him. It never fails to surprise me that people don't seem to get that, whether they dislike the tone or cheesy writing of that chapter. I dislike the writing of the chapter but I still appreciate the sentiment. Why is that so hard for readers?
** It would be a lot better if the happy ending was implied, rather than clumsily spelled out. A settling down scene where he thinks how happy he is with his friends or something, where the reader can share the feeling of the scene, rather than a timeskip wich just shows the results.
*** So... It's not the happiness per se, it's how she wrote it out leaving nothing to the imagination?
**** That's one part. It kills the feeling of hope and anticipation when you can already see the result. Another one is that it is just so...cheesy. It was one step away from Rowling writing out "and then Harry lived happily ever after" verbatim as her ending. Once again, it doesn't have to be a bleak ending to be acceptable, but it becomes annoying when you come out of a bloody war with lots of casualties and into an almost SugarBowl.
***** Do you see the length of these pages? If Rowling didn't explicitly detail Harry's future, the fans would have hounded her in Q&A sessions until she did. They still do regardless, for all the numerous secondary and tertiary characters she * didn't* mention.
** Rowling likes to sink ships.
*** After all of the FanDumb, this troper doesn't much blame her.
** Part of it was that the Epilogue didn't seem to exist for anything except ShipSinking. All we really find out is that Harry and Ginny got married and had kids and Ron and Hermione got married and had kids. If we were going to get a "17 years later" perspective, I would have liked to learn something that ''wasn't'' obvious from the end of the book. We could have learned about the characters careers, how they had changed since leaving Hogwarts, how the Wizarding World had changed...instead, we learn that the [[OfficialCouple official couples]] get married. [[SarcasmMode Thanks, because I would never have figured that out from the last chapter.]]
*** It showed that not only had Harry forgiven Snape, he also respected him. A lot. Possibly too much. And Draco [[TakeThat was fat, balding, whipped, and stupid]] (the TakeThat was what the author seemed to be saying, not mine).
**** ...The epilogue did say that Draco's hair was "receding somewhat" and that he was standing with his wife and son but it never mentions anything about being fat, whipped, or stupid. At all. And I didn't like Albus Severus' name because it just seemed like such a mean thing to do to a child. Harry has his son James, his daughter Lily, and his other son Albus Severus. How old was he before he could pronounce THAT, I wonder.
*** Well, no. He named his son James Sirius, his daughter Lily Luna, and his other son Albus Severus. Albus, while more antiquated than James or Lily, is still a perfectly serviceable name, particularly in a world where every second person is named something crazy like Quirinus. And I doubt that Harry and Ginny call their children by their first and middle names, so they're just James, Lily and Albus. Completely normal.
* Why did Ginny not get to name any of their children? Unless the 'Luna' in Lily Luna is her input. None of the names have particular significance to her. I would have expected a Fred maybe (or even a George's Left Ear). Or possibly even an Arthur.
** George named ''his'' first son Fred. Possibly Fred Arthur. And Bill's full name was already William Arthur Weasley [[hottip:*:He sounds like he should be part of [[BuffyTheVampireSlayer the Watchers Council]]]]
** And I seriously doubt that Ginny had no input. I doubt there was a scene of "Hey, Harry, I think we should name him--" "Oh, sorry, I already filled out the birth certificate. He's James Sirius. But you can name the next kid. Maybe."
** Aside from Ginny surely having some input, think about it this way: Harry's [[OnlyChildSyndrome an only child]]. If James or Lily were ever going to get memorialized, it's through him. Ginny is [[MassiveNumberedSiblings one of seven]]. Less responsibility there, especially since she probably had her kids after all of her older siblings. (And indeed, WordOfGod says Percy's daughter was named Molly, though there unfortunately doesn't seem to an Arthur among the Next Gen.)
* Severus Snape was a JerkAss who hated everyone except his precious Lily. Just because he isn't a Death Eater and made sacrifices to help Dumbledore, doesn't redeem him at all. He was still rude to Harry for no reason, scarred Neville for life, made fun of his students, and called Hermione (and many other people) the Wizarding equivalent of the N-Word ''even though'' that was what ended his friendship with Lily. While Dumbledore claims Snape felt the greatest regret for sending Voldemort after Harry, that is a [[BlatantLies a complet and total lie!]] Snape only felt remorse because ''Lily'' was going to die. He didn't give a crap about James or Harry. Even Dumbledore realized that and told Snape that he "sickens him". If Snape were truly remorseful, he wouldn't have been such so rude to Harry. Snape also refused to teach Occlumency to Harry even though he knew that Voldemort would use legilliemency on him. Even ''Sirius'' agreed that Snape needed to teach Harry Occlumency. I will admit that Dumbledore had many JerkAss moments himself. However, for the most part, Dumbledore treated Harry and the others with kindness and understanding. As for the other names, as others have said, besides Lily's middle name their all named after dead people who Harry knew (Unless Luna died sometime between the last chapter and the epilogue, that's my next point) Ginny was barely associated with most of these people. My next point about the epilogue is that it tells us ''nothing''. The only thing we learn is that Harry, Ginny, Ron, and Hermione all ended up marrying their high school romances. [[SarcasmMode Because that happens ''all'' the time.]] (This is all the information we're given, this is stuff we could've guessed since the ''sixth book''! We are given some bare facts here in there, but I would have preferred an epilogue that, instead being written within a story format, was written as a fact sheet format. That lists most of the characters, and tells us where they are now. Or at ''least'' Have the main characters see off their kids then go into the Leaky Cauldron and discuss what's going on with their lives and the lives of their friends. Instead we get, Harry married Ginny Ron married Hermione, Draco married someone, and Neville became Herbology teacher.
* My problem is partly that the epilogue is so feel-good and sappy and that it basically doesn't tell us anything that can't be inferred. I'm not arguing for a wangsty DarkerAndEdgier ending: I'm fine with a peaceful settle down after everything they've been through; hell, I prefer it. The problem is it focuses almost entirely on a few characters and tells us what's already pretty obvious: Harry marries Ginny, Ron marries Hermione (yeah, I know some fans would refuse to accept that that's what happened unless it was spelled out, but that's because they prefer their own fantasies about the series over what's pretty blatantly stated; the rest of us can figure it out on our own). I would have preferred a better view of how things have gone since then, like what various characters are up to now, how some of them are dealing with losses or with injuries (like Lavender Brown; did she survive that mauling? Is she okay?) how life has been proceeding since the end of the war, etc. Basically, we know what's going to happen with the main characters; it's fine to show how they're doing in the Epilogue, but I also wanted to know how the supporting and minor characters got along, instead of vague allusions to just a few of them. Also, Harry and Ginny suck at naming children. Albus Severus? Lily Luna? These names are fine individually, but some names just clash when placed next to each other. But I digress.
* What bothered me more than any of the aforementioned things is the fact that Harry apparantly deemed Remus and Tonks unworthy of having kids named after them. Every other important dead character does. It's hardly unusual for a kid to have two middle names (I do) and Dumbledore had three! So why not add 'Remus' to James Sirius Potter's name (nice to have all of the Marauders together.) And if you can bring youself to call a child Albus Severus or Lily Luna, I don't see why you couldn't call one Lily Nymphadora. Or even just Lily Dora. Why the heck did Luna get a kid named after her when she's still alive over when there was still an equally major character who died?
** AddedAlliterativeAppeal for Lily Luna. Also I think Harry let Teddy have the weight of his parents names rather than the rest of the named characters (minus Luna and Harry's parents) who didn't have children. But then again I wasn't in favor of the naming children after dead people myself.
** To name everyone important, brave or significant to Harry would involve quite a few more children. Also, I like to think that Luna also (vaguely or not) refers to Lupin. Luna does mean moon in latin after all.
* On the topic of Luna, it seriously JustBugsMe that Rowling married her off to a character we've never seen or even heard of. I mean, she's an EnsembleDarkhorse beloved by readers, and you gave her off to some stranger? How the hell are people, shippers or otherwise, supposed to feel good or supportive about that? This is just a Neville/Luna shipper talking, but still. The whole concept of it makes no sense.
** I think it makes perfect sense for someone as out there as Luna to find someone she cares about in the oddest of places, although I too was disapointed that JK did posthumerously deny the Neville/Luna ship.
[[/folder]]

[[folder: Why Don't The Trio Just Shoot Him?]]
* Given that they're in hiding since their main enemy has taken over the government, why don't either of the Muggle-born main characters (Harry or Hermione) realize just how good an idea getting a lethal weapon that doesn't require pure hatred to use would be? Such as, say, a gun. An old, cheap, easy-to-acquire (in the right places) AK-47 has a rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute and an effective range of 300 meters. This easily outpaces any wand and out-ranges most (if not all) of the magic that we've seen. And it operates on purely mechanical principles, so the magical wizard plot field of inconvenience shouldn't have any effect. A handful of people armed with these and trained in basic marksmanship could have eliminated Voldy and any of his cronies before they'd even realized they were under attack. And they're way too arrogant and self-superior to ever do any research into Muggle weapons, even if they're getting killed by them. It would undermine everything they believe in if Voldy came to the next monthly Death Eater meeting and announced, "It turns out that magic is of remarkably little use when one is too full of bullets to cast it. Also, one killing curse every few seconds has nothing on a rate of fire of ten bullets per second, each plenty lethal. Therefore, we are looking into defenses against these weapons, and are arming ourselves with them. Starting now."
** This has honestly been discussed to death. Long discussion short it would have been difficult for them to get ahold of guns in Britain which has very strict gun laws. But most importantly ''this is a fantasy book'' '''for children'''. It's not the moral JK wanted to send that using guns solves all your problems.
*** It JustBugsMe that half of this particularly sizeable JBM page is "Why wasn't [Insert Character Here] packing a Glock?"
*** Yeah, me too. Especially since (a) A simple shield charm could probably stop a bullet, (b) You could easily say "Accio Gun!" and (c) We've constantly been shown that wizards are physically tougher than muggles - Neville was dropped out of his house and fell twenty feet, and the worst he got was a broken wrist. If a bullet was flying towards a wizard, presumably he'd do some involuntary magic to stop it.
**** Twenty feet isn't actually that far to fall. A broken wrist is believable if most of the impact was absorbed into it as he hit the ground. That's not super-wizard-endurance, just basic jump physics.
**** "A simple shield charm could probably stop a bullet" I haven't seen any evidence for this. Specially since the shield would have to be up and pointed pre-emptively; bullets are too fast for reflexes.
**** Surely the best evidence for it is the simple fact that ''even the bad guys, who would have no problem with either the morality or the practicality of stealing them, never use guns in the series''. Also, Hagrid says James and Lily couldn't have been killed in a car crash, which would also be "too fast for reflexes". It seems wizards just aren't vulnerable to mundane means of murder.
**** You're freaking kidding me right? James and Lily couldn't have been killed by a car crash because ''they don't have cars'' not because they are magically immune to car crashes. On the other hand we see Bellatrix trying to kill Harry with a knife, the owner of the elder want having his throat slit, and trolls giants and centaur arrows being effective weapons against wizards.
***** Centaur arrows. Kinetic or close fight weapons made in the wizard world can kill wizards. It's not absurd that you could perform a charm protecting yourself against any Muggle weapon.
**** What about Arthur Weasley's Ford Anglia? Or, if he's too much of an anomaly, consider that Lily Potter, as a muggle born, might have learned how to drive. Regardless, I always got the impression, from Hagrid's implied tone, that he WAS, in fact, claiming that a car crash would have been incapable (and far to mundane a method) of killing James and Lily Potter. That they were too powerful. I'm not sure exactly how this works, but apparently it does. As for the knife, Bella might have only wanted to wound him...
** Yes, this troper fully believes that a strong shield charm would block a bullet. Even Dolores Umbridge-who was probably pretty bad at magic seeing as she only taught theory-managed to block centaur arrows. the Death Eaters in DH were simply overwhelmed by trying to block a dozen curses and arrows at once, and, even worse, [[CrowningMomentofAwesome having a bunch of gleefully blood-hungry house elves with cleavers on them]]. After becoming completely protected from bullets, the wizard could then simply turn the gun into something harmless-or harmful to the wielder-or melt it, turn it to dust, etc.
*** Umbridge only taught theory NOT because she had to have sucked at magic but rather because she and Fudge were paranoid about Dumbledore turning the students into his own private army and so was trying to sabotage that. Besides, arrows are a LOT slower moving and thus easier to block than a freaking bullet.
** {{Word of God}} explicitly states that guns triumph over wands any day, JK actually ''says'' this. Go on. {{Muggles Do It Better}}. Take a look. The only reason this seems to never be an issue is because the Ministry of Magic are so anal about keeping up the Masquerade, and Muggle and Wizarding World barely mix. So really, any witch/wizard could have whipped out a gun and pwned their opponent, it's just too muggle for them, they don't bother with interacting at all.
*** To me it's mostly because, as far as it is in the wizard world, everything is like Middle Age. So, you can't use firearms because, in heroic fantasy, the most powerful range weapon allowed is the crossbow.
** Also, for all those, WhyDontYouJustShootHim types, remember this takes place in England, not America, it is much much harder to get firearms there, and guns are no where near as prevelent in the coulture. Even beyond all the "not wanting to stoop to muggle means" arguments about why they didn't use guns is the fact the even among the muggles there guns can almost border on taboo.
** It's been stated earlier on in the page that in a world where wizards don't use "Muggle technology" like pencils, it's pretty unlikely that they would use a gun. The Muggle Artifacts rule seems to be if there's a wizarding equivalent of a Muggle object, then the Muggle object won't be used, and if there isn't a wizarding equivalent, a magic-infused Muggle object will be used. For example, the wizarding world uses radios which are Muggle inventions made better by magic, because they don't have a wizarding equivalent. They don't use guns because there is a wizarding equivalent - Avada Kedavra. This rule can apply to pretty much any object in the 'Verse.
** The villains don't use guns because they're arrogant pricks who refuse to believe that any Muggle device could possibly be more effective than their magic, or worth their time to obtain or learn how to use. The heroes don't use guns because it was too hard for them to get access to them, and they had not be previously trained in their use. Yes, a gun-wielding Muggle beats a wand-wielding wizard, but ''only if the Muggle is well trained with the gun''! Presumably if there are wizards in America in the Potterverse, some of them might have enchanted guns that fire magic bullets.
*** Unlikely. Wizard rarely improve Muggle technology. They prefer to use pure wizard item. OK, there is the Ford Anglia, but because it can be used for camouflage. They prefer brooms to fly.
*** For the Trio, this is especially true. Ron's a pureblood who can barely grasp how to operate a telephone, let alone a 'fireleg'. Harry was raised in a cupboard under the stairs. This leaves Hermione as the only one of the bunch who might ''possibly'' have ever had weapons training bef-... sorry, couldn't keep a straight face. Really, when and where are any of the Gryffindor Trio ever supposed to have found weapons training? Even if they used magic to loot a Scotland Yard Armed Response unit, they'd be lucky just to load the things, let alone fire them, without accidentally shooting themselves.
** Lets assume for a second they did this, they found Voldemort alone, and shot him in the head, then managed to get away before they were killed by his legion of followers (itself straining credibility to an absurd degree). What part of "immortal lord Voldemort" don't you get? The only reason it took him that long to return to life the first time was because his body was completely disintegrated. If he was just shot, he'd probably just get up and brush himself off. But even if his body was destroyed again, he now has an army of loyal followers, an easy way to capture the people who hate him with a fiery passion (Mrs. [=McGonagall=], please come to the grounds at once) and they know exactly where his father is. They could perform the exact same ritual that brought him back the first time easily. It would sidetrack him for maybe 20 minutes, only now he considers Muggles a direct threat, and starts genociding.
** I probably should've realized the anti-gun law thing before I thought that same idea to myself. Guns are pratically impossible to obtain in the UK (though that apparently didn't stop Vernon from carrying a rifle in the first book, assuming the law was in effect in the year the book takes place in (1991).)
** As much as I'd be amused at Harry going "#### THIS!" and shooting Voldy, I'd much rather see a wand to wand fight between the two.
*** Yeah, except we didn't get that, either. We got a monologue and a rebounding spell.
** Why is "they're in England, they have gun laws!" a valid counterargument? They are Wizards! they can teleport anywhere in the world. Including places where they can pick up weapons that are illegal elsewhere. And as for Voldemort's immortality, they can take care of that while he's searching for a new body.
*** Ignoring of course the other Wizarding governments that would no doubt be suspicious of people trespassing into their country. You have to remember that they have little to no money, are on the run, and it's never confirmed they can teleport large enough distances to say cross the body of water surrounding England. Also keep in mind that Voldemort had Harry listed as undesirable number one, a person of interest, and had the whole Magical Government keeping an eye out for him (so if they keep track of unscheduled transportation across boarders they probably check it out). If other countries found him they might be scared enough to turn him over to Voldemort.
*** All three of them are fugitives from the law--Harry is, of course, Undesirable Number 1, Hermione didn't present herself for questioning, and Ron should be on his death bed with spattergroit. Other Wizarding governments probably wouldn't know or care about Hermione and Ron, but Harry is literally the most wanted person in England at the moment. Assuming that Wizarding nations have the same loyalties that Muggle ones do, don't you think that, say, Magical USA would try to capture him and give him to the British government if they found him?
*** Besides, they're in England, they have gun laws, probably none of them can shoot a gun. It's a lot more complicated than you might think.
[[/folder]]

[[folder: Severus Snape: Good or Bad?]]
* How is Snape a good man? From what I could tell, he was a sleezeball that was bitter because he didn't get to marry Lily. From what I gathered, he planned to let Voldemort kill James and Harry so Snape could comfort and possibly be her new hubby. Harry's too much of a male Pollyanna.
** ...Wait, what? When did he ever indicate that he planned to let Voldemort kill Lily's husband and son? Are you referring to when Snape goes running to Dumbledore and begs him to protect Lily and Dumbledore's all "OMG, why didn't you also specifically ask me to protect a man you hate and a baby you've never met despite the fact that it's highly unlikely that if I did agree to protect Lily I wouldn't bother to so much warn James"? Snape quickly replies with a "Yes, yes, protect them, too. Does this mean you'll help?" He was only particularly concerned about saving Lily, yes, but Lily was the only one he had a personal connection to and if saving Lily involved saving James as well, he was okay with it. Him asking Voldemort to save Lily also was just an insurance measure in case Dumbledore failed (which he did). He couldn't ask to protect James as well as that would look suspicious since they hate each other. He definitely couldn't ask to protect Harry since killing Harry aws why Voldemort was going after the Potters in the first place.
* It's because when Dumbledore asked Snape why didnt he ask Voldemort to spare Lily and kill James and Harry (it's phrase differently; cant find the quote)Snape said he HAD asked him that. To which Dumbledore responds with, "you sicken me".
** It's more a matter of Snape trying to get repentance for his mistakes. He's forced to do certain things because of Dumbledore's grand plan but he also works very hard behind the scenes to ensure Harry wins. Yes, he started out very selfishly trying to get Lily for himself but after she dies he realises exactly what he'd done and works hard to protect Harry, despite not liking him at all, for Lily's sake. He's not a good man but he's a decent man who tried to make up for his perceived greatest mistake.
** So wait... ''Nothing'' Snape did counts as "good"? Putting his life on the line as a spy, protecting a whole school full of children from the most evil wizard in a century, making sure an innocent (broadly-speaking) kid didn't permanently damage his soul by committing a murder, and oh yeah, ''dying for that person he hated so much''... None of that matters in the end? [[LoveRedeems Way to miss the point on that one, OP.]]
*** I don't think that Snape was a good person, but he was still on the side of good, if that makes any sense. It's not even a GoodIsNotNice situation; he wasn't cruel or ruthless because of tough love or because it would make people stronger, he was cruel because he was a dick. He regularly bullied children and psychologically tortured Neville to the point that, despite knowing the face of the woman who tortured his parents into insanity, Snape was his worst fear. He didn't abandon Voldemort's cause because he stopped believing in it, he left because he loved Lily obsessively. He was brave, yes, and loyal to Dumbledore and Lily's memories, but he was still an asshole, actively sabotaging the attempts at happiness of Harry and anyone close to him. He was a bad person, but he was a good guy.
*** You apparently missed the part where I said "''nothing he DID...''" And um, yes, it ''is'' a GoodIsNotNice situation. From the GoodIsNotNice page: '''He never kills anyone if he can help it, nor will he allow people to come to any sort of harm by ignoring them. He's always willing to go out of his way to save the town and complete strangers. When the call comes, he will answer it, usually with very little protest. He will often help people in need with little promise of reward. In almost every way, he acts like the typical hero. Except that he's antisocial and sometimes downright abusive toward most people he meets. He may refuse to explain anything. He may actively repulse people who express gratitude, friendship, and love as well as offers of support if he's got a problem. ...Good Is Not Nice is... a character who is morally slanted toward the good side but is rude, unfriendly, and mean.''' If that isn't Severus Snape to a T, nothing is. (It's usually a good idea to ''read'' the trope pages before making an example of them, yanno?)
**** Yeah, except it's ''not'' Severus Snape to a T. In exchange for turning coat on Voldemort, Dumbledore provided him with immunity from prosecution for his crimes while under the Dark Lord's employ, the promise of Lily's safety (which obviously didn't take), and a position at Hogwarts. He has, in the past, actively sabotaged Harry (and friends') ability to receive an education, despite knowing for a fact that he (and friends) would be faced with dangers far beyond those that an undertrained teenage boy (and friends) should be faced with. He attempted to effectively murder Sirius. He is not unfailingly good. He is, perhaps, failingly good. And the reason that he is currently on the side of good is not because of his own moral code but that of Lily's, and while the strength of his loyalty, bravery, and devotion are worthy of merit, his morality isn't. He's not GoodIsNotNice, he's Greyish Morality Is Not Nice. But you're right: I did fail to address your original point, which was your refuting "nothing he did counted as good." Because I agreed with it. He did good things. He also did hateful, malevolent things that would easily push him out of the Good column and well into the Neutral.
** "''He has, in the past, actively sabotaged Harry (and friends') ability to receive an education...''" I'm sorry, but what the FUCK series did you read?! Allow me to point out here: EVERYBODY IN SNAPE'S POTIONS CLASSES PASSED THEIR O.W.L.s! Ron, Hermione, Harry, even Neville "can barely stand a cauldron up straight", all passed it. Snape never ''actively sabotaged'' anyone's ability to receive and education. Let me point out also that ''Harry'' was never particularly active or attentive in Potions until HBP, and that he bore as big a grudge against Snape as Snape did against him. You're talking to a future teacher here, and I am telling you with absolute certainty: The burden of educating ''cannot'' rest entirely on a teacher's shoulders. The ''student'' must be willing to learn, and Harry actively refused to learn anything from Snape, even at the cost of mastery in his best subject, Defense Against the Dark Arts. Hermione was just as subject to Snape's personality, but she didn't suffer much for it (and it's not because she's Hermione and she's the AuthorAvatar; it's because she's mature enough to realize that "this dude's an asshole, but he also knows what he's talking about; it would be in my best interest to listen and learn from him"). Don't act like Snape is to blame entirely for Harry being an IdiotHero; Snape did his best to teach him (even if he didn't have the best attitude), but Harry's own stubbornness was his downfall when it came to learning the necessary skills.
*** I remember a scene in the third book where the kids were supposed to be making a Shrinking Solution, and Neville messed up badly and began to redo it in the middle of class. A good teacher would have explained to Neville what he did wrong the first time and how he could improve. A bad teacher would have left him alone and failed him for the day when he messed up his second potion. A dick teacher would have left him on his own then force-fed the potion to his beloved pet, fully expecting the poor toad to die. Guess which one Snape did.
*** While it's true that Harry was unwilling to learn from Snape, Snape was, from the very start, unwilling to teach him. He began by bullying him (relentless pop quiz on his first day of school, and his first introduction into magical education). Harry should have tried to rise above this abuse for the sake of his education, as Potions is important for later life and the career he wishes to attain - but is it really fair to ask a 15 year old boy (as he was during his [=OWLs=], for example) to be the bigger person? Or to try hard in a class where (as we see one day when Harry thinks he might have actually done well) the teacher will actively sabotage your efforts and fail you? Not good for motivation. Hermione learns from Snape because she has a thirst to learn and do well, but for an average student, why would you work hard if you're guaranteed to fail? As for DADA, I think the mutual hatred was basically ingrained, although I don't think it was particularly mentioned that Harry didn't pay attention. He probably did. He just still hated Snape and Snape continued to bully him. He should have been more open to Snape's lessons, but I can easily see why he wasn't.
**** I agree. Snape ''did'' "actively sabotage" them on several occasions: at least once, because Harry hadn't made a potion ''perfectly'' (and, as he had mentioned, there were many in the class whose potions had turned out worse than his), he gets a 0 for the day. Later, when he makes sure that he had followed every step, Snape intentionally drops his flask, ruining the potion, and gives him another 0. It isn't restricted to Harry: Neville is bad at the subject, yet Snape never tries to correct his mistakes, only bullies him. He basically presents the material and expects mastery, rather than helping students when they encounter problems (I've had teachers like that before--I know that students need to make the effort to learn, but the teacher needs to actually care about them learning, too). What really irritates me is that the end of the series basically [[HandWave Hand Waves]] all of his considerable shortcomings and outright cruelty because he did a lot to help the good guys. It feels like the readers are supposed to forget how nasty Snape was throughout the series because they're deluged by an onslaught of him being a somewhat decent person.
*** Like the posters above, I read the books where Snape deliberately gave Harry failing marks unfairly and bullied his students without correcing their mistakes. I would also like to add that SNAPE IS A TEACHER. I fail to see how some people do not understand what a teacher is supposed to be. If students are meant to sit down with a list of ingredients and just figure things out themselves like in Snape's class, then the class is little more than self-study and the students should be applauded for passing their [=OWLs=] with nobody to teach them. That would put Snape on the level of a '''poor''' teacher like Binns, who drones in monotone straight from the textbook. When Snape doesn't teach anything '''and also bullies the students''', then his class is '''worse''' than a self-study session with no teacher. He is actively sabotaging their learning.
* People are not "good" or "bad". People can do good things or bad things or both, sometimes to the extent that it is impossible to weigh the one against the other in any meaningful way. Isn't that the whole point of Snape's characterization and story?
** Yeah, I agree with you, for the most part. The problem is how the material about Snape is presented. One critic of ''The Great Gatsby'' had said that the ending basically relied on the reader forgetting everything unpleasant that they'd learned about Gatsby up until that point, so that his death is portrayed as tragic and sympathetic. It feels the same way with Snape: the readers are supposed to forget everything nasty about Snape (of which there is a great deal) and place him firmly in the "good guys" category. I can't really say why it feels that way, it's just that the series undoes his supposed villain status by showing that he was a double agent, and from then on Snape is presented only in a positive light, by ''everyone.''
* What bothers me is the fact that he never intended to repay his life debt to James. I know he did eventually, by looking out for Harry, but since Harry was supposed to die, Snape fully intended to let James die without the debt ever being repayed. Also, the fact that he wanted to save Lily for his own selfish reasons without any regard for what she may have wanted makes him an ass. What if his plan had worked? Did he really think she wouldn't ''loathe'' him when she found out that he'd been completely fine with Voldemort killing James and Harry? He's a selfish prick who decided his own happiness was more important than Lily's. Otherwise he would have wanted her to be happy with James, and would've asked Voldemort to spare him too. I realise that asking Voldy for two favours probably isn't the smartest thing to do, but if he were even a halfway decent person his conscience wouldn't have let him NOT at least try. And didn't it even occur to him that maybe Lily wouldn't have wanted to live if James and Harry had died? He was basically saying, "I couldn't give a fuck that you're going to be miserable over the husband and son you're losing, I only care that I don't have to lose you."
** I honestly find this completly in character for him. He loathed James for seven years and couldn't see James doing anything for his sake and probably never believed that James saved him out of the goodness of his heart, but only to get out of trouble. Personally, I could never see Snape beg Voldemort to save Harry or James as he could care less about them. This is of course ignoring the fact that Voldemort was going to kill James for defying him three times and kill Harry for being the prophecy child and only really believed in sparing Lily because Snape begged selfishly (Voldemort probably would have killed Snape for trying to beg for all three lives). He loves Lily, but that doesn't mean he wants her to be happy with people he hates. It's meant to be portrayed as a very selfish love in my opinion.
*** I agree, but as noted above, and as you kinda noted too, there's really no way Snape ''could'' have begged for all three lives. Now, when Snape came to Dumbledore and asked him to help save Lily, that was selfish and Dumbledore called him out on it. But with Voldemort, Harry was the whole reason he was focused on the Potters, and James had drawn Voldemort's wrath anyway. The only person Voldemort might concievably spare, if properly begged for by a loyal Death Eater, is Lily. Snape asking Voldie to spare her was effectively a backup plan if the Order of the Phoenix failed to protect all three, and it was the most he could expect from the Death Eater side of things. It's still selfish, but it's also the only thing he could ask from Voldemort without getting exposed as a traitor, or at least sounding like he's gone completely mad ("Um, say, Voldemort, could you just forget all about that baby prophesied to destroy you? And his father, the one who's defied you three times, we can spare him too, right? Oh yeah, and the boy's mother, let's just make it three for three. So, we're all done with this Death Eater meeting about how to deal with the prophecy, right? Who wants tacos?").
**** What makes you think that Voldemort felt more wrath towards James than Lily? The prophecy said that Harry was born to "those" who had thrice defied him, not "he who had thrice defied him and she who is a pretty face but completely neutral in the matter". I always assumed that Lily and James had both gotten themselves in bad situations with Voldemort three times and defied him.
***** Then he already personally wants to kill them both, which makes Snape trying to bargain with Voldemort for all their lives even more impossible.
** Not exactly any less evil, but he could have tried to change Voldy's mind into going after Neville instead. Still a dick move (which is in character for Snape) but at least it would've been an attempt at repaying the life debt to James. Seemed to me that he was happy that James (and probably Harry too) were going to die otherwise he would have tried (and probably failed, but still would've been worth a shot) to get Voldy to take the option that would keep Lily out of danger completely. Also, on the matter of James' motives for saving Snape, you're probably right that they were less than pure, but Snape's obviously far more capable of killing/letting someone die (hence the whole Death Eater thing) so I tend to think James deserves to be cut a little slack there.
* Heres a thought. What if Voldemort had decided to go after Neville? Snape would have been ''perfectly'' fine with that. While I will admit Snape did good things and was ultimately on Dumbledore's side, he's still an evil Bastard. He was inexscusably rude to his students. As a teacher, his role is to teach the students how to do what they need to do, and to help them when they are struggling. A teacher's role is ''not'' to write instructions on the board, then sit back while everyone does it while occasionally assigning them homework. And it is '''NOT''' MAKING FUN OF STUDENTS WHEN THEY DO SOMETHING WRONG. I have teachers that have done both of these things and it is completely inexscusable. Poor Neville was scarred for life by Snape. Snape was a man who joined [[strike:Nazi]] Death Eater regime solely on his own. He wasn't someone like Wormtail who joined Voldemort because he was scared of what would happen if he didn't. He was a person who fully and truly believed in the pure blood supremacy (and still does seeing as he calls STUDENTS the Wizarding equivalent of the N-Word). And he only left that particular group because they killed the only person he truly loved. This is one of my big problems with the book. It seems to be based on the theory that the only thing different between good and bad is capability to love. While I will admit that someone incapable of loving would generally be considered evil, almost every human on this planet has loved someone it's a natural part of life. Severus Snape is not a Hero, Anti Hero, Villian, or Anti Villian. He's just an evil asshole who happened to be on Dumbledore's side.
** I feel that Snape was poorly developed after a certain point - personally the point where everything he does is because of a girl he liked in school who didn't like him as it seems rather pathetic and out of character - and that's why its so difficult to pin him down. I always read Snape as being protected at Hogwarts but also being trapped at Hogwarts too. He can't go against the headmaster, he's stuck teaching and Snape himself all but admits he hates teaching and is there because Dumbledore wants him to be. Going on his age many of his earliest students were probably at school with him and remembered him being bullied and humiluated on a daily basis by the marauders - wouldn't that be a brilliant environment to work in - with members of staff who remember the people who bullied you as heroes with the exception of Sirius Black and a subject that you've always been good at if you go off his textbook in the sixth book. People who are brilliant at subjects tend to find them very difficult to explain because they don't understand why others can't get it the same way they do. All this before The Boy Who Lived comes to Hogwarts and when he does within two months he's chased after a mountain troll putting himself and others in danger rather than getting an adult, managed to get the school rules bent so he can be on the Gryffindor team even though its not allowed - let's face it anyone else would have gotten detention and who paid for that broom anyway? Either [=McGonagall=] and Dumbledore paid for it themselves showing blatant favourtism or the school did and that's probably worse as its not like the school would have paid for some random Hufflepuff's broom even if they were a good flier they'd be given a school one. And that's before Xmas!I always figured Snape decided that Harry's spoilt by his other teachers and that he'll make up for it to keep his feet to the ground. As for Neville some of the potions ingredients probably do have adverse reactions and would you want to be the person teaching children who might poison everyone in the room?
** Let's just make one thing perfectly clear: ''Snape never used the term "Mudblood" intentionally after his major screw-up with Lily''. That needs to be said. Maybe he used it half-heartedly at a DE meeting or something, but he never referred to his students as such. Where are you people getting that from? {{Fanon}}? He actually calls out Phineas Nigellus Black in his PensieveFlashback when the portrait uses that term to refer to Hermione. It's clear that he felt he crossed the line that time, and hadn't "used the magical equivalent of the N Word on his students" as the above posts seem to claim. I get it, the man is a {{Jerkass}}. A flawed, ultimately on the side of good, {{Jerkass}}. But let's not [[RonTheDeathEater go overboard here]]. Otherwise, your just as bad as the ones who try to [[DracoInLeatherPants squeeze him into the leather pants]]. Besides, from how I interpreted his past, he seems to have been driven to the Death Eaters more by his fascination with the Dark Arts than his feelings of Magical supremacy. Oh, I'm sure he paid lip service to the concept, and had his fair share of prejudice, but he said himself in his memories with Lily that blood status really doesn't matter (right before Petunia stumbles in). The Death Eaters are basically a mixture of Supremacists and Dark Arts users, most of whom likely aren't all the pure-blooded. Severus could simply switch sides specifically because he didn't believe in pure-blooded hype any more than he believed in Dumbeldore's equality for all beings. Lily was pretty much his entire motivation. Creepy? Yes. Selfish? Yes. But at least he had the capability to feel love, unlike his former master.
* I think there's some truth to this- Snape thought Harry was being given special treatment, and yeah, he kinda was. Minerva gave him breaks from class so he could practice for the Quidditch team and even let him on the team when he was underage, but that was because he was damn good at Quidditch. The problem is that Snape didn't see Harry's special treatment (or Harry himself) for what it really was- he saw Harry as a miniature version of James. Beloved by everyone, treated special by the teachers, and good at sports. He never even considered (as Dumbledore pointed out to him at one point) that personality-wise Harry isn't the least bit like James was at school, that is to say an egotistical JerkJock. Yes, Harry hated Snape too, but that's only because he was an unlikeable, bullying dick. If he'd shown up that first day (with no knowledge of James and Severus's history) and Sanpe acted like any other teacher, he wouldn't've thought twice about it. Snape could've treated him like all his other students (which is pretty crappy, but could've at least not singled him out) and let the grudge end there, but he was too petty to be the bigger man and just went to tormenting Harry as some twisted form of revenge against James. It kind of makes this weird cycle of hatred; James bullied Snape, Snape grows up and bullies Harry, than as Harry grows up, he outright hates Snape because of it. As for Snape being trapped at Hogwarts, I've always felt that way myself, why else would Snape ever work there willingly, but even if he's angry at his job that doesn't make it okay to take out on the kids he's teaching. All that said, I think Snape was a man who did wrong in the past and redeemed himself over the course of the series, but I, like a lot of other folks on the page, just hate how the last book seems to sweep everything else that was wrong about him under the rug and expect us to forget it.
** I don't think the last book expects us to forget about his wrongdoings. Once you finish the second-to-last book, it feels like Snape is the irredeemable "bad-guy," and the last book clears it up (if you can call it that, since 'clearing it up' means leaving you in the dark as to whether he was a so-called "bad guy" or "good guy.")
*** I never got the impression it was making it look ambiguous. Harry naming his son after Snape in [[FanonDiscontinuity the epilogue]] implies Harry totally forgave everything Snape ever did to him, no matter how petty and cruel. You could argue it's a sign of Harry forgiving Snape and moving past his hatred, which I wouldn't mind. But the way it's presented and the level of fondness he shows seems to imply Harry looks back on Snape with admiration and affection. Admiration ''maybe'' but you don't look back on someone who dragged out a schoolyard grudge and bullied you every day for 6 years with affection. Likewise, I just read The Prince's Tale and it puts a lot of emphasis on Snape's reactions to Lilly breaking off ties with him and getting picked on, which is fine, but it also totally skives over the stuff Snape did to deserve it. We heard it mentioned everywhere else that Snape did bad stuff at school as well and acted like a git to everyone besides Lilly, but the last ending of the series decides to totally cut this out and look at his positive qualities. That's what bothered me, not that Snape was a flawed character, but the book's seeming insistence that he was a victim of circumstance. FruedianExcuse or no, he made his own mistakes.
* An interesting note: If you erase the way he treated his students, it's easy enough to imagine Snape as the NotEvilJustMisunderstood guy. In fact, to me, the way he treated his students seemed both out of character and something that had been tacked on as a redundancy. I take it with a pinch of salt, the same way I do with the Dursleys' treatment of Harry. In real life, even if the Wizarding world did exist, there would be a few things that remain the same anyhow: a) the Dursleys' treatment of Harry would not be tolerated; and b) Snape's treatment of his students would not be tolerated. So I see both of these as carefully tacked-on exaggerations meant to reinforce readers' hatred of Snape before we realize his actual backstory.
** Continuing on this line of thought, though I'm not excusing any of the actually bad things he did, which was mostly how he taught his students, consider that he did have a FreudianExcuse, and a major one. Again, I am NOT saying that we should completely cut him slack, but do take into account that his childhood and life was enough to turn a saint into a psychopath. I think it's the fact that he was still able to cling to a degree of love and in his last breath aid the hero he hated so much, that makes me have some faint affection for him, as long as I take his terrible teaching abilities with a very large pinch of salt.
** I don't see how Snape's treatment of his students is at all "Out of character." Not when for the first two books had his treatment of his students be one of his ''defining'' character traits (before stuff got serious and the Death-Eater background came out). Even when you hear his backstory, Snape is only working a teacher because he's serving Dumbledore and doesn't seem to want the job. Also, as an InsufferableGenius, it's unsurprising he'd treat see anyone not on his level of intellect as incompetant asshats, even if they're only eleven-years-old (this is a common occurrance for people who are really good at something- experts in a field don't always make great teachers).
[[/folder]]

[[folder: Hermione And Her Parents]]
* Hermione modifies her parents memories, without telling them about it. '''''Hermione modifies her parents memories, without telling them about it.''''' What the '''FUCK?!''' You're a muggleborn, for God's sake! I get that the world's in danger from a guy who can't kill a teenager, but would it hurt to, I don't know, ''talk about it with them''? But they would say no, so you wouldn't be able to do it. [[WellIntentionedExtremist It's for their own good. You have to do it.]] Jesus ''Christ''. They would have been perfectly safe in Australia. Have them tell people they're taking a year off, it's easy. Voldemort's not going to come after them; did he come after the Weasleys? No. Hell, if they'd just stayed in England they would have been perfectly safe. I guess you can argue hindsight, but ''come on''. '''No one''' questions her on this? No one goes "geez, Hermione, that's pretty extreme." No, it's just accepted that this is perfectly fine, because they're [[FantasticRacism muggles and they wouldn't know any better anyway]]. Talk about [[DesignatedHero Designated Heroes.]]
** She did it that way not because they were muggles, but because they were her parents. Yes, they would've most certainly not gone along with her plan, as no sane parents would've (Weasleys, being members of the Order, were a very different case), and even if they had somehow found inner resolve to leave without her, living in Australia would've been a torment. Hermione went for the most merciful way. As for being safe in England...*facepalm*...Death Eaters didn't harass the Weasleys '''solely''' because they thought Ron was at home, sick, and the very moment the charade was exposed, the whole family went into hiding!
*** Voldemort knew the Weasleys were close to Harry. Hell, he ''had'' to have known he was dating one of them and another was his first and best friend. So why didn't he ever kidnap them (Ginny was at Hogwarts the whole time, ''which was controlled by the Death Eaters''), and threaten to start sending Harry body parts unless they showed up? And I don't see how mind-raping her parents into believing they were entirely different people is the more "merciful" option. How about a house under the Fidelius charm? And Hermione could've gone with them to Australia, then left. She's a witch, remember? Are they really going to follow her back, knowing that they don't stand a chance against anyone with a wand? No, what really pisses me off is no one has a problem with this, because Hermione did it, and since she's on the side of good, that makes it okay. If a Death Eater did it, then it's eeeeeeevil. Am I the only one that sees the '''HUGE''' DoubleStandard here?
**** First of all, I agree with you that there are other options out there that she should have considered beforehand. However the reason I don't get upset is that even if they confronted Hermione about it they can't exactly do anything about it until after they defeat Voldemort. She told them about her plan after she already sent them off to Australia, and even if they knew where in Australia her parents were they can't go and find them because they're wanted by Voldemort. To bring this possibly polerizing opinion out into the open would cause tension between them which they can't afford to do. After everything's over I think they did yell at Hermione for her tactics, but not as much as you would, as regardless her plan worked and it'll be up to her if her parents forgive her or not.
***** You know, there are plenty of things I have no control over, or can't change, but still piss me off. Just because they can't do anything about is doesn't meant they can't find it ''wrong''. Not to mention that Ron's favourite pasttime is arguing with Hermione. It just doesn't make any sense that neither Harry nor Ron questioned her on it. As for the idea that it might "cause tension between them which they can't afford to do", that's ridiculous. Is Hermione really going to leave them alone? No.
***** Somewhere above in this page it was asked about whether it was strange that none of the Trio stops to angst about stooping to the Unforgivables. I'll give you the same answer I gave there: '''it's neither the time nor the place for that'''. They are at war. The Trio is enlisted, Weasles are as well, but Grangers are not - they are civilians. And civilians have no say in their safety at war. As for alternatives, a Fidelius Charm requires a Keeper, most likely Hermione herself, who constantly risks capture, which invalidates the whole point. That is if FC even works on Muggle houses (it's never used that way in the books). As for the Weasles, they considered hiding the whole family, but decided to take the risk to keep Arthur in the Ministery. As for why didn't V take advantage of it, well, keep in mind that he was obsessed with the Elder Wand, not to mention that he was, and I can't stress this enough, '''a complete and utter moron'''. As for double standards, I'm sorry, but just WTF are you talking about? When did a Death Eater try to protect someone from certain death, if even through such unorthodox measures?
****** This is dangerously starting to get into that "Greater Good" shtick that anyone with a functioning brain cell knows is bullshit. Point is, there's plenty of things that Hermione's could've done to protect her parents. Why don't they hide at Grimmauld Place or another Wizarding home (like, say, the Longbottoms)? "They are at war" is an awful excuse for not talking about it, because for all intents and purposes for most of DH the Trio sat in a tent and did nothing but argue about with each other. Would have been the perfect time to bring up the ethics of mind-raping your own parents, or using the Unforgivable curses (life sentence in Azkaban, people!), that have to be ''powered by hate'' to use. Remember in [=OOtP=] when Harry used the Cruciatus Curse and wangsted about it? Apparently the Imperius is different somehow. I do love how you mentioned how big of an idiot Voldemort is, because if he couldn't be bothered to go after a family '''actively involved''' in the resistance, why would he go after two muggles whose only connection to the Wizarding World is they inexplicably produced a witch? Hindsight, I guess, but it would've been nice if there had been ''some'' repercussion for Hermione. Or maybe it was just a lazy move on Rowling's part to remove the threat of Hermione's parents being kidnapped. Yeah, let's go with that.
***** First, no wizarding home in England was safe, especially for Muggles who cannot Apparate. Even Grimmauld Place was eventually compromised, if you recall. Second, V's idiocy is obvious to us, but it's clearly not something they could rely on if they had a choice. Third, no, Harry never wangsted about cruciating Bella - he had more important things to worry about, just as the Trio does in this case. What real good could bringing that topic up possibly bring them? Fourth, if you tone the righteous wrath down, what exactly was so horrible in Hermi's deed? She ensured her parents' safety, she spared them from missing everything they left behind (which they would've no matter where they hid) AND going insane with worries and fear for her and [[ArsonMurderAndjaywalking provided them with a nice respite from England's dismal climate]]. Finally, and that probably should've been brought up in the very first place, what proof do you have that she didn't tell them about it, huh? HUH?!! Oh, and she was clearly distressed about it.
****** Let's put it this way. Would you have appreciated it? Would you have forgiven her? In time, probably, but it's still an enormous dick move, and what bugs me is that a) it's never brought up again, b) it's a really weak move on Rowling's part to get rid of the issue of hostages (like Ron disguising the ghoul as him, or Voldemort being criminally retarded), and c) this is the ''heroes'' that do this. Hermione's no saint: her treatment of Marietta Edgecome and Rita Skeeter prove this. But what she does to her parents is, for me, her MoralEventHorizon. You might as well have her throwing around Killing Curses (it's justified, because she's Good Guy).
***** Okay, let me be the mediator here: Yes, it was extreme for Hermione to send her parents to Australia. She could've just sent them to France where they'd be closer to Britain than Australia. Let's remember that she was ''crying'' about this. She knew she probably screwed up her relationship with her parents for a long while. It was made clear she was not happy with this. The only reason she did it was because of Voldemort. If it weren't for a mass-murdering nutcase running around, she would not have had to do this at all. I think Harry actually tried to call her on it, but Ron told him to STFU.
***** Death Eaters were attacking Muggles at random when this was going on. Every single Muggle, connected to the Wizard world or not, was in extreme danger of casual torture and death, and given that Hermione was wanted, it's likely that they even faced the same dangers that the Dursleys faced. Hermione needed to get her parents out of that danger, which they likely would have refused to do while she was at such risk. So she made them get off the entire continent since Voldemort was only a threat in Europe, change their names so they wouldn't be tracked down buy magical or mundane means (Which surely the ministry would try to do for any wanted criminals), and not accidentally slip up and put themselves in danger with a slip of the tounge, or have their minds casually read by any Australian wizards that might have any Death Eater sympathies, plus it kept them from the torment of worrying about their daughter they'd raised for seventeen years. They could enjoy their safety in their own comfort.
** Does it ever actually ''say'' in the book that Hermione did it without their consent? Because from what I remember it didn't say one way or the other.
*** Which means that her parents were OK with never, ever, remembering their daughter again, which is kinda creepy. Heck, the debater below me is of option that "they definitely would have given her a resounding "Hell no"".
** OP, let's say that Hermione ''did'' ask her parents about it first. They definitely would have given her a resounding "Hell no" to the idea of moving to Australia while she fights a magical war. They can't hide at home because there is the possibility of them being hunted and tortured for her whereabouts. They possibly wouldn't have been totally safe in Australia either. Where do you go from there? Hermione was under the impression that she very well could '''die''' while on this mission and didn't want her parents sitting at home or in Australia waiting to figure out their only child is dead. If she did happen to die, they would be able to live normal lives. If she didn't, then she said that she would go find them again and reverse the charm. When she did (fully offscreen), that would have been the time for her to suffer some kind of consequences for what she did.
*** Well, if they refused, it'd be their choice. They are adult people and have the right to decide for themselves.
** There's also the fact that Hermione lives in a society where obliviating is considered mundane. A witch/wizard's reaction to memory-wiping is NOT the horrified MindRape that we would have, it's more of a giant shrug. The ministry even in its non-corrupt forms has an entire office devoted solely to mindwiping muggles, good characters (including Arthur, quite possibly the biggest muggle-lover of all the wizards that weren't raised by muggles, and the trio) regularly talk about obliviating muggles like it's no big deal, and the worst part of Lockhart's use of the memory charm isn't considered the mindwipe but the taking credit for work that he did not do. Yes, Hermione's muggle-born and she tends to have more compassion for non-wizard/witch anyways, but there's no real double standard here, just one giant case of values dissonance.
*** Mindwiping small things like biting doorknobs is one thing, and mindwiping a large part of yourself is another one.
* Does anyone else wonder what Hermione's parents worked as in Australia? They're both dentists, but presumably to work in Australia they'd need registration there, or at least evidence of qualification. But since their names are changed they can't use their degrees, nor can they list references on their CV. So it seems either they would have to live off whatever savings they have (again a problem since Hermione would have to transfer money from their old account to a new one using their fake names) or they would have to spend the rest of their days working in a bar.
[[/folder]]

[[folder: Unsorted Examples pt1]]
* It bugs me that Lucius Malfoy gets redemption because he loves his son and wife. I know, I know, he might have been sent off to jail at the end of book 7 off screen, but my point is that he was PRESENTED in a very positive light in the 7th book, despite all the horrible things he have done in the past and his former high-ranked Death Eater position. This is pretty much applied to all the Malfoys, but I really only have issue with Lucius because really, Draco is pretty much a stupid kid and Narcissa wasn't an active Death Eater and we don't have any proof that she really did anything, while we know for sure about Lucius being a devoted Death Eater and we know at least that he used to arrange torture Muggels nights. With all due respect to the sincere love of Lucius to his family, I'm sure a lot of Nazis, other racist murders, mass murders, just regular murders, terrorists, mafiosos, rapists etc loved their family – it's still doesn't excuse what they have done.
** Pretty sure it was confirmed that the Malfoys managed to get out of Azkaban AGAIN (surprise surprise) so Lucius really never suffers the full consequences for his actions. However, that makes him and his family pretty believable - the survivors who can worm their way out of anything. Fair? Who knows. Happens in real life? Heck yeah.
** Remember that Lucius is the only Death Eater shown to give even a fraction of a damn about anyone at all, so, whilst not completely absolving him, he certainly is a hell of a lot better than any of the others.
** I don't know that he was presented in a positive light, just a less-negative-than-some-of-the-other-Death-Eaters light. Which is fair enough.
* During the Death-eaters regime in the seventh book, what would have happened to a wizard or witch who was the child of a muggle-born wizard and a muggle mother (or vice versa) under the new laws?
** Supposedly the child would be little more than a Muggle-born, so in this case treated as though they were a Muggle-born. This is of course if papers weren't forged like some families were doing. To determine how 'pure' the blood is by how many immediate family members are magical, mainly focusing on grandparents first then parents. So if papers were forged that the Muggle-born had two magical parents the child would be treated as a half-blood. It gets rather complex the more combinations you bring into the discussion.
** The whole idea the Ministry was putting out at the time was that any whitch/wizard without any actaul witches/wizards in there immediate family got there power by stealing it from a real wizard, hence creating squibs. While any mixed blood would deffintly be looked down on and treated like second class citizens, it was only those without any magical parentage that got punished.
* It seems Harry had the following things going for him when he walked into the forest to confront Voldemort: the Horcrux inside him, his intent to die for the people he loved, and his blood in Voldemort's veins. Which of these did what again? My working guess is that the blood kept him alive, the Horcrux didn't do anything except go away, and the sacrificial intent shielded the defenders of Hogwarts, but I still feel like I'm missing something.
** He also had the loyalty of the Elder Wand, which probably would have been hesitant to kill its owner, but not its owner's enemy's piece of soul.
** I'd go so far as to say that's the long and short of it. Harry didn't die because he was the master of the Elder Wand. Dumbledore meant for Harry to ''actually die'', sacrificing himself to kill the bit of Voldemort and to create the hearth-protection on the defenders of Hogwarts. The only thing that saved him was that the Elder Wand intervened. That's also why he wasn't hurt when Voldemort zapped his seemingly-dead body.
** It wasn't the fact that he was master of the Elder Wand that saved him (in the forest when 'Morty hit him with the AK)...it was the fact that Harry was, himself, the final Horcrux. 'Morts killing curse actually killed the part of himself that rested in Harry...of course, 'Mort didn't KNOW Harry was a Horcrux. The Elder Wand intervened when Voldemort fired off the AK in the final battle...Harry was able to "reflect" and "un-reflectable" spell, simply because the Elder Wand knew who its true owner was.
*** He didn't just have the Elder Wand. He had all three Deathly Hallows, and so was the master of death. Dumbledore knew he could bring the Hallows together, which is why he gave the clues to finding them to Harry, Ron, and Hermione, and only them.
**** Didn't he drop the ring just before he was about to face Voldemort? And the cloak?
**** ^ One could argue the point that he had also mastered the Resurrection Stone and Invisibility Cloak by that time, too. Granted the seemingly useless ring seems to have only one definitive useful purpose, gaining courage through images if your dead loved ones.
**** Also, the fact that he dropped the ring and cloak didn't change the fact that he owned them.
** I don't think it was any individual element. IIRC, Dumbledore mentioned that so many extremely powerful magics had created a chimera of a magical bond unlike anything the Wizarding World had seen. Harry had a part of Voldemort's soul & Voldemort was essentially of Harry's flesh. Individually, either could have profound magical effects. Combined, it meant their souls were tied together with some darn good rope. And to add icing to the cake, a hesitant wand. From what I can figure, the process was more or less: AK is fired, hits. AK burns both souls and sends'em to the Afterlife (or tries to, anyways). Horcrux is destroyed in the process. The Power of Love is still tying them together, however, which manages to hold Harry's soul (and the attached Voldemort shard) on the edge. Voldemort's own soul (or what's left of it) almost gets pulled in the process (remember, he collapsed and everything). This burns out the remaining link. Harry's soul, now free of its leech and still not past the Point of No Return, goes back. Meanwhile, the Ancient Magic of Love Protection was invoked when Harry gave his life for the others, rather than by the kill itself. That's why it worked even if Harry managed to return from the edge of the afterlife.
*** That's apparently what Rowling had in mind - she said that she wanted to make it that the defying death things were completely accidental, not formulaic and easily replicable.
** In this troper's mind, this was all sort-of planned in Dumbledore's big [[XanatosGambit Xanatos Gambit]]. In book 4, after Harry had his blood used in the resurrection ritual, there was a throwaway line about Dumbledore having a "look of triumph" in his eyes, that is quickly explained away by Harry being tired. My logic is that Dumbledore guessed that, given Harry's status as a Horcrux, and Voldemort's body now carrying on the protection his mother gave him, that it would very likely be the case that Voldemort couldn't kill Harry. He probably also guessed that Snape would eventually show Harry his memories, and, being the [[ManipulativeBastard Manipulative Bastard]] he is, fed Snape the information that would drive Harry to sacrifice himself. Granted, [[WordOfGod Word Of God]] 'does' imply that nobody really knew what exactly would happen, but Dumbledore probably had some good guesses.
*** Canonically, that is exactly what happened; Dumbledore confesses such in the "King's Cross Station" conversation towards the end of Deathly Hallows, right down to admitting that he was guessing. The problem here lies in that this would mean that Dumbledore had ''no'' plan on how to save Harry up until book four, which puts a decidedly different spin on Dumbledore's original intentions.
* If the protective spells used in the beginning of the seventh book prevent any Death Eater from getting within X distance of the protected house (forgot what, let's call it "100 meters"), but include vertical distance and thus allow you to be 100 meters above, why the heck didn't the Death Eaters just drop a house, an elephant, a boulder, a tank full of enraged or charmed poisonous snakes, a bomb, or any number of other things on top of them? I mean, we have things that could easily and reliably kill from miles above or even miles away horizontally, without even using magic. Are they that focused on conventional offensive spells that they don't even acknowledge alternatives?
** The spell blocks anything except Order members/Harry and friends from getting through. Seemples! *squeak*
** Why, if the spell managed to bounce a flying Voldemort off, would a rock work? Yes, yes, no limit fallacies and all that, but Death Eaters are limited in what they can summon to heights as well, and the protective enchantment might shield against evil projectiles to an extent. Besides, wizards have no idea about high explosives.
** And that's assuming that Death Eaters would even deign to stoop to lowly Muggle tactics.
*** As discussed in Main/IdiotPlot, not even [[Comicbook/{{X-Men}} mutants]] try using [[Main/DroppedABridgeOnHim such simple tactics]]. Which I don't consider as Muggle tactics, but LooneyTunes tactics.
** Because trying "smart" tricks to circumvent magical spells is more likely to backfire than do anything useful? (See Fred and George's attempt at entering the Triwizard Tournament). Magic doesn't work by logical principles, people.
*** On the other hand, we ''know'' that the blood protections do not work to prevent ''Muggles'' from offering violence to Harry Potter on the premises of Privet Drive; we've seen Harry put in a choke hold, swung at with a frying pan, and have a bulldog set on him, not to mention all of Dudley's "Harry Hunting". The Imperius Curse has an obvious use here... and so does simply paying money to the sort of Muggles who will willingly do such crimes.
*** Fred and George used magic to circumvent the system. No word was ever produced as to what would happen if Cedric had put Fred's name in instead of his own. Yes, Dumbledore likely thought of every scenario, but Fred and George attempted the easy way to circumvent the system. The best example that would have proven or disproven the theory is lacking because Harry's view of the scene was lacking. Did any of the Death Eaters following him with Voldemort hit the barrier as well? And if they did, how many fell off their brooms (and likely hovered in air due to the spell)?
*** Asking someone else to put their names in is a possibility, but I'm more wondering why no one thought of the simple solution of a friggin ''POLE''.
*** ^ Because a) Dumbledore, like a DungeonMaster, probably thought of that, and b) carrying a pole through Hogwarts would be rather conspicuous.
**** As fake Moody explained, it took a strong Confundus charm to get Harry's name into the Goblet, as the Goblet is extremely powerful, and would've just thrown the extra name out/destroyed it.
**** The Charm wasn't needed to get Harry's name into the cup, but to get it in under the name of a fourth school, and make the goblet believe there was supposed to be four champions.
*** ^ Conjuration. Walk up to the goblet, conjure a pole, use the pole, dispel the pole.
*** Even simpler solution. Write your name on a slip of paper. Hand slip of paper to 7th-year student. Pay him some galleons to toss it in for you.
** You're assuming that magic works on legalistic rules. I don't imagine that it works in such a way that a Death Eater can't be a hundred meters from Harry. Rather, it works in such a way that Harry is protected while he calls chez Dursley home. More likely it works on the same rules that your parents go by, if that makes any sense. If your parents say that you can't have any cookies until you get "back to the house," and you go to a friend's and eat cookies there, saying that you were technically "at the house" won't stop you from getting five across the face. It doesn't matter what the word of magic is, it's the spirit of magic that matters.
*** We're talking about after Harry left the Dursleys', about the protection the Order had put on Tonks's parents' house, the Burrow and the other places they put protection on as decoys. And my answer would be that the protection is probably like a shield that keeps out ''any'' unwelcome intrusions -- not just Death Eaters but also material objects such as boulders dropped from above.
* Why, oh why, why on ''earth'' did they decide that they needed to wear that stupid locket in the seventh book? It wasn't for lack of better place to put it, as they had a bag of holding and another bag which could never be opened by anyone except Harry, either of which would be more secure than their necks. And even if context didn't tip them off that it was cursed and not nice to wear, they quickly figured out that it did, in fact, have a strong malignant effect when worn that they'd have been much better off avoiding. And they keep wearing it. And while I won't blame them for being caught off guard when it actually tried to kill Harry the first time, the fact that he continued wearing it even after that and gave it a second chance to kill him is absurd. He deserved to die for that.
** The only thing I could think of is that the locket could exert some sort of 'pull' on anyone of interest who came too close; sort of fogging their heads up just enough to make it ''seem'' obvious that you have to wear the locket, you just ''have'' to. (Justifying, justifying...) It might help to explain Umbridge's inordinate interest in it, too: I mean, talk about a stickler for the rules (well, the ones she likes), but she let Fletcher off for the price of a ''locket''? (Thinking about it this way at least made me a little less annoyed.)
** Don't forget that Harry knows what happened the last time someone tried to wear a Horcrux. The ring was deadly, and that wasn't just spending time with it, it caused irrevocable damage almost instantly when it was put on. Good thing the Horcruxes generally prefer to screw with those who associate with them than to kill them.
*** No he doesn't..he doesn't know at that point it was putting on the ring that maimed Dumbledore, just that he was injured while retrieving it, for all he knows it could have been a protective spell around the hiding place that did it.
** The three of them were ''extremely'' paranoid. They were hiding from the wizarding world and were carrying around a piece of Voldemort's soul while making freaking well certain he didn't find out what they were up to. All while marked for death and imprisonment and while Death Eaters and Snatchers were on the prowl. Harry didn't want to take the slightest chance that the locket would be stolen or lost. Even if he put it in his bag, there's no guarantee that the ''bag'' wouldn't have been lost or stolen, which would again mean no more Voldemort soul which would mean wasting time and possible danger trying to retrieve it.
*** Wearing the locket around his neck is no safer than putting it in that locked personal bag he also wears around his neck. It is probably safe to assume that the locket will mess with you if it's in your immediate possession though, otherwise they could've just put it in any makeshift bag to hang around their necks to protect themselves. It's not clear how the thing works.
*** Seriously, though, deciding to keep wearing that thing is like Frodo keeping the Ring on his finger: PlotInducedstupidity.
[[/folder]]
------
[[folder: Unsorted Examples pt 2]]
* I don't care how dangerous or forbidden Fiendfyre is: If Hermione knew that it could destroy a Horcrux, she should have at least mentioned it rather than letting them search for months for something capable of destroying the locket Horcrux, treating the sword like they couldn't complete the quest without it once they knew it worked and then relying on Basilisk fangs to kill the rest. You're a smart person--you can find some way of using that spell without causing too much trouble, like Apparating to a tiny desert island right before casting it and Apparating away. As for the dark nature, if Unforgivables are ok that's ok, and with dark magic being sold and taught openly surely she could've gotten hold of it if she didn't know how to cast it. And she definitely knew ''of'' it, since she recognized it and knew that and why it would destroy a Horcrux when it was used.
** I would tend to assume Hermione ''didn't'' know it, considering how Dark a spell it was, and as for learning it or buying it -- how, or from whom, in the middle of the forest? Remember, the three of them were completely cut off from society.
** If you don't know what happens to people who use evil magic just because it's more effective, even for a good cause, just ask [[Main/StarWars Anakin Skywalker]].
** Who knows if it even needs fuel. Might as well hop all the way to the nearest settlement or whatever. (Not to mention that finding deserted islands to 'port to isn't quite easy.)
** First off, how many "desert islands" does Hermione know about personally? Second off, Fiendfyring something is a guaranteed way to destroy anything and everything flammable as long as the fiery creatures can keep running, eating/burning stuff, etc. They'd have a field day in a forest, or (pardon the pun) a cornfield, and therefore using Fiendfyre on the tiny locket would probably be only marginally less noticeable than tripping the Taboo-sensor. The only reason that it stayed inside the Room of Requirement was because there were non-flammable walls enclosing the entire area.
*** Well, she knows that Ron went to Egypt between books Two and Three. Lots of deserts in Egypt, that's all I'm saying.
*** And even if you hadn't been there before, how could you possibly miss landing on Antarctica?
*** Sure, no one would notice the sudden spike in sea levels from all of the ice in Antarctica melting.
*** And that's ignoring the problems of getting out of the country in the first place.
*** Yeah, really. IIRC, ''Quidditch Throuhg The Ages'' mentions that Apparation between continents is quite difficult, and likely to result in Spliching (something Ron wouldn't be keen to experience again). As smart as Hermione is, she's not all that experienced at teleporting. Chances are, she wouldn't even make it across the English Channel.
**** The English Channel is only 150 miles wide at its ''widest'' point, and only 21 miles at its narrowest. Wizards routinely apparate greater distances than that; Hogsmeade is several hundred miles from London, for one example.
*** ''No'', the only reason the fiendfyre stayed contained in the Room of Requirements is because it's a magical pocket dimension. Fiendfyre ''doesn't'' just burn flammable things, unless you're going to tell me that a tiara made of solid silver is somehow flammable. Fiendfyre eats ''everything''. It is ''sentient fire''. ''That'' is why Hermione never conjured any of it up.
**** Metals can burn, if you have the right conditions (usually involving the presence of carbon and extreme temperature). Also silver has a very low melting point for a metal, so practically any fire would have destroyed the tiara if it hadn't been horcruxed. The fiendyre worked because it's magical enough to break the protective enchantments of the horcrux, and simple temperature did the rest.
* Anyone else bugged with Dumbledore's uber Omnipotence in the last book? He was always portrayed as a smart guy, but all of a sudden we're supposed to believe that he KNEW Harry would find all the Horcruxes, even though the only clues he left him were for the Hallows, and the location of one Horcrux in particular (the cup) was only deduced after the kids ACCIDENTALLY got themselves caught and taken to Malfoy manor? He acts as if almost everything went according to plan, when chance obviously played a hand in events.
** He gave him everything they needed, the skill and knowledge to pick up where he left off. He didn't know that Harry would find them. But with the knowledge of Voldemort he imparted he damn well hoped that he could. The last book was Harry (somewhat literally) thrown into the wilderness to see how his skills shaped up without his omnipresent guardian.
** Dumbledore makes mistakes, and makes decisions without consulting those affected, and when questioned his response is usually along the lines of BecauseISaidSo. Dumbledore '''knew''' that a number of things he was doing were dickish or stupid (e.g. putting on the ring which would've killed him, which he openly admitted was a big mistake), and he did them anyway. There are a number of times in the HBP where Harry questions his decisions, and Dumbledore never gives him a straight answer, at one point saying yelling "I'm much cleverer than you" to Harry. Whatever his good points, Dumbledore promoted obedience over independent decision making.
** Also, I got the idea that Dumbledore didn't know the locations of the cup or the tiara. He can't leave more clues for Harry if he himself had no idea.
*** Obviously Dumbledore didn't know the location of either the cup or the tiara. The tiara was right under his nose in the room of requirement the entire time. He'd have made a beeline for it if he had known. He showed Harry the last known location of the cup (stolen by Riddle from Hepzibah Smith) and taught Harry how Voldemort thinks and acts in the hopes that he could use that information to trace it down.
*** Harry almost explicitly said that Dumbledore wouldn't have known where the diadem was; he said something about how Dumbledore and Flitwick, being the model students that they were, wouldn't have gone into the Room of Requirement to hide things. And remember in Book 4, Dumbledore mentions a room full of chamberpots that he didn't understand.
** Keep in mind, Dumbledore had one major failure: Snape. Harry's quests and assignments were Plan A, with Hermione and Ron able to carry Harry's knowledge of the Horcruxes if Harry died. Snape was the other side of the plan for killing Voldemort, and that plan completely backfired.
** It was also implied that Dumbledore ''didn't'' know that they'd be able to figure out everything. He says at the end that he had "hoped" that Hermione would figure out about the Deathly Hallows and then have the sense to not let Harry go running off after them willy-nilly.
** Simple: Dumbledore is BAD ASS.
** To answer the OP's original question about Dumbledore's near-omnipotence, I say unto you: "[[{{Dogma}} Do you know what the dead do with most of their time? Watch the living.]]"
* The three primary characters had very little time towards the end of the last book before Voldie discovered that his Horcruxes were missing. Time was of the utmost essence. And yet they sat down and had a meal with Aberforth (granted the conversation at the END of the meal was necessary for plot and character development). That's okay, though, because we all know that the bomb isn't disarmed until the last second, and that when the camera isn't on the clock itself, time does strange things.
** There was one particular thing there: they had no way to get into Hogwarts, which is what Aberforth told them. In order to get in, they had to convince him to help them, because he had the only key to the last secret passage. So, if you don't know how to get where you want to go, best to ask for help. And eating after everything they'd been through probably wasn't a bad idea either.
** I'm pretty sure Harry would have jumped into action once his scar begins to burn way worse than it did the past months. Besides--aside from the reason given above--it would be a great idea to pack in some calcium and carbohydrates to get ready for the biggest evil BadAss of all time.
** They hadn't slept, hadn't eaten, and were recovering from a Dementor attack. It doesn't seem like a quick meal of bread, cheese, and wine while trying to get help from Aberforth was that unwarranted.
* How do the Malfoys, who used Unforgivable Curses multiple times each, get out of punishment just because Narcissa helped Harry a little? (Especially Lucius because he actively fought for Voldemort, so did Draco, Narcissa probably did too)
** Because Narcissa's aid was a significant, and arguably vital, part in the defeat of Voldemort. That plus Harry Potter being the forgiving type towards the Malfoys could swing it easily, especially given that immediately after the events of ''Deathly Hallows'', it's hardly unreasonable to presume that the Ministry of Magic would be feeling ''extremely'' charitable towards Harry and any requests he happened to make.
*** Significant? Vital? Voldemort is a moron. What would he have done if Narcissa had said Harry was alive? AK him again. To absolutely no effect. We know this because he does that later. Frankly, had she said he was alive, the duel would have probably taken place right then, only Harry would just have to grab a wand from the nearest Death Eater instead (who would be way too shocked to put up resistance). Frankly Voldy is way too stupid to try anything but magic, even if he could win by bludgeoning Harry to death with a stick.
**** Wrong. Voldemort's AK in the great hall didn't work because the Elder Wand wouldn't overpower the simultaneously-cast counterspell from it's true owner. If Voldie [=AKed=] Harry in the forest a second time, Harry would be dead, as he had no chance to defend himself, and no longer had any protection from things like bits of Voldie's soul hanging onto him. Also, he did have his wand in his pocket, he just didn't want to be tempted to use it to defend himself when he went to meet his death. And who's to say that after the party died down, the Malfoys weren't arrested, tried and sent to Azkhaban? All we see is the party (where the Malfoys are sitting nervously expecting someone to confront them at any moment), then cut to 19 years later, where we only see Draco. His parents might still be in Azkhaban, and he might have served time there himself.
** There's no reason to believe that the Malfoys didn't pay their due between the end of the Battle and Nineteen years later. For all we know Draco could've been in Azkaban for 9 years, released, THEN got married and produced little Scorpius.
** Also, ever since the beginning of book 6, Narcissa seemed unwilling to follow Voldemort. I believe she only did because she was afraid for her son's life. Draco was only 16, and so slanted from his father's (and probably mother's) prejudice, how could he be expected to be anything else? He showed potential for good at the end of book 6 and, had he been given more time, I think he might have taken Dumbledore's deal. He was frightened, just like his mother. In book 7, he does show some mercy, if you look closely at encounters with him.
*** Because when you run a succesful counter-revolution and you win you still have to work with the people that were on the other side if you want a lasting peace. The US learnt that the hard way in Iraq. Remember how they threw all Ba'ath party members out and the country went to hell? Same principle, unless the new administration wanted to re-fight this war with different names in 20-ish years time, then they had to swallow their righteous indignation and forgive and forget. Winning a war is the easy part, winning the peace is the hard bit. I suspect there was probably something like the South African peace and reconciliation commitee involved. Plus heros are kinda obligated to be heroic and gracious in victory, vengance and punishment is for villains in the Potter-verse.
* Harry Potter's just a bit too fond of the IdiotBall when it comes to using his magical items sensibly. Sirius Black, his beloved Godfather, gives him a magic mirror which allows him to communicate with him any time he wants. Harry promptly puts it away somewhere and forgets about it, even when he really, REALLY wants to check with Sirius to make sure it's OK. Then, in 'Deathly Hallows' he gets a magic bag which, when he puts something in, nobody else but him may get it out. PERFECT place to put a Horcrux...except when a certain author wishes to do an irritatingly long homage to The One Ring. So instead Harry puts the damn thing around his neck and acts like a Jerkass for several hundred pages and almost gets killed as a result. It even gets to the Ron arguably engages in a LampshadeHanging after rescuing Harry from drowning.
** Thank you. It really bugged me that Harry & co. were determined to wear that thing around their necks, despite the fact that they knew an evil soul lived in it, and was corrupting them. Even if they were too dumb to put it in the magic bag, um, hello pockets anybody? They even say they're glad the cup doesn't have a string so they don't have to tie it around their necks...even though there was no reason to wear the locket in the first place.
** Probably would have been the exact same thing as wearing the thing if Harry put it in his bag in terms of mental exhaustion, just because he isn't explicitly wearing it doesn't mean it won't effect him due to mere proximity. The reason why they actually wore it is probably because it would be a bit more of a chore switching the amulet to another person should they have to extricate it from whatever extra dimensional space it is currently in, especially if the person is rather irritable as would likely be the case.
** The bit with the mirror, IIRC, was that Harry didn't know what it did, as when Sirius gave it to him, he was to busy having a hissy fit to really care. He didn't find out what it was until Sirius was already dead.
*** He knew it was a method for contacting his godfather and put it away vowing never to use it cause he figured it would result in Sirus getting captured, however between this and the ending much time had passed and he no doubt (in his panic) forgot about the package he hid and put out of his mind much earlier in the year. He only had moments, in his mind, to come up with a plan to save Sirius and as far as he knew Sirius was most certainly being held at the Ministry, it wasn't a matter of talking to him, it was a matter of getting to him in time.
**** In response to Harry knowing the present was a way to contact Sirius, no, he did not. Sirius just told him to use it when Harry really needed him, or something vague to that effect, and Harry never even opened it. Its appearance at the end of the book serves to make the situation more poignant: all this time he had a way to save Sirius but did not know about it.
**** On top of that, he suddenly realizes at the end of the book that he had the mirror all along ''and spends several minutes figuratively kicking himself over it''.
** Just because his bag could only be opened by him doesn't mean that it couldn't have been stolen or lost. And even if the Horcrux couldn't have been taken out, it still would have meant that they would have wasted time and endangered themselves trying to get it back.
* Wouldn't it have been easier to steal around someone's neck than in a bag no one but Harry can take things out of? Imagine if they'd still had the locket when the Snatchers caught them. Presumably someone would have searched them and found the locket. Even though they would've had no idea what it was, it wouldn't have been too hard for one of them to go "Hmm, this looks valuable. Yoink."
** I'm still of the opinion that one of the enchantments on the locket was an IdiotBall. There was no reason for them to carry it around and degrade their mood and friendship, it was the locket causing all intelligent thoughts about it to be ignored.
* Just had a thought, though most of the muggle-born wizards who were accused of "stealing" magic by Umbridge and co were sent to Azkaban in ''Deathly Hallows'', some became street beggars. But they were muggle-borns, couldn't they have moved in with other relatives or looked for a council house and signed on to the Dole until they picked up enough skills to get a non-magic job. Which could have taken a while, yes, but would have given them somewhere to live until the regime blew over.
** Some of them probably have. There are presumably thousands of wizards in Britain. Assuming roughly ten percent of them are Muggle-born, there'd be hundreds lining the streets if every one of them took to begging. Probably the ones left behind are the ones who didn't have any Muggle connections left, as Lily would have been if it had happened to her (after all, she couldn't very well go to Petunia now, could she?)
** Most Muggle-borns probably don't maintain enough of a legal identity among Muggles to return to a life among their parents' kind. If they applied for public assistance, they'd be asked why they hadn't previously done so...and, if they admit they'd been working in the interim, why they haven't been ''paying their taxes'' up to now.
** Plus, imagine being an adult having to read adjust to the Muggle world after essentially becoming more Wizard than Muggle. Especially since you would have, at best, a fourth grade Muggle education.
** Keeping in mind that the regime was obviously, visibly turning against Muggles, many of them probably didn't want to put their relatives in danger by staying with them.
** There's also the fact that a lot of hate crime was obviously going on and the most popular wandmaker in England had disappeared. Who's to say that there ''weren't'' some real wizards and witches who had their wands "confiscated" by hacks or rogues masquerading as "peacekeepers" or something. With no way to cast magic and no way to get a replacement, what else could they do?
[[/folder]]
------
[[folder: Unsorted Examples pt3]]
* In ''Deathly Hallows'', we see Harry using three wands and causing more damage than the standard single wand. Why doesn't everybody use multiple wands in that case?
** When?
*** The Malfoys' house. Wizards prefer to use a wand "tuned" to them, I guess. I wonder why they don't carry extra wands. If I was a wizard, I'd have disguised wands in my pencil case, in hairbrushes, in my socks, on spring-loaded contraptions I keep up my sleeve, I'd probably have one literally up my butt. '''CONSTANT VIGILANCE!'''
**** Moody did mention 'someone' loosing half a buttock due to misfire...
*** That'd probably be hideously expensive. And not especially useful for the majority of applications.
**** Maybe when buying a wand, it will only choose a wizard who doesn't already have one to begin with (though the rules are different when you win a wand in combat). So unless you happen to have won a lot of wands, it's just not worth it. You could buy multiple wands sure, but without the allegiance there wouldn't be much of a power gain.
** [[FanWank Maybe]] if a person uses more than one wand, either the wand they aren't attuned to starts getting less and less usable, or of they use two wands with a strong link to theirself they get into competition and eventually "pull the wizard apart" (metaphorically or explosively) when he or she tries to multicast a stunning spell one too many times?
*** What I'm getting from that is that wands are jealous, possessive, and territorial. Man, wands are pricks.
**** [[WhatDoYouMeanItsNotSymbolic Yes, yes they]] [[IncrediblyLamePun are]]. But think of it like a person who switches between a calligraphy pen and a felt-tip pen. As the person prefers the calligraphy pen because the felt-tip doesn't have enough force feedback or stroke control, or the felt-tip because the calligraphy pen is too scratchy, they rely more and more on the one with which they are more comfortable, and get more practice with it, and become even more comfortable with it. It's sort of the same way with wands, only instead of the ink from two separate reservoirs flowing through it to mark paper, it's your energy flowing through it to warp reality.
** The most widely-used wandmaker in England was missing and the Ministery was confiscating wands left and right. New ones would have been hard to come by.
** Also, the few times multiple wands/spells are used, they don't just have more powerful, they're unpredictable. What if, using your uber-powerful-ten-wands-tied-together-stick-of-DOOM, you tried to bake a cake and instead accidentally destroyed a country with a magical nuclear explosion? When Harry, Ron and Hermione-three tired, weakened, confused teenagers-try to disarm Snape, they end up smashing him into a wall and nearly kill him. No point killing an enemy if you turn everyone else around you and yourself into a pile of smouldering ash.
* Voldemort had the children of Hogwarts under his control for nearly a year. Why didn't he use that time to brainwash the kiddies into becoming little Death Eaters? Almost all the students volunteer to fight against him in the end, so we know he didn't.
** He wanted to (he did make attendance obligatory), he put Snape in charge of running the place and Snape was working against Voldemort. So Maybe Snape lied in saying he was brainwashing the kids, while making sure the non death eater teachers were free to teach the kids properly.
*** What makes you think he didn't? Carrows taught Dark Arts to kids, Muggle Study lessons were used to trumpet anti-muggle propaganda, what else do you need? Besides, let's not forget that for the length of the DH Voldemort was intent to remain a grey eminence until LaResistance is crushed so as not to instigate a full-scale rebellion among wizards. It turned out he was right as the rebellion did break out after he went gunz blazing adainst Hogwarts.
*** He tried to do that, definately. Turns out, torturing eleven year old kids is not the best way to win their loyalty.
*** Additionally, he had not even a full year to start his brainwashing program, and most of the students who wanted to stay knew Harry personally. That's gonna trump an obviously eeevil education. (Plus, the older students may very well have told the younger ones who hadn't had as much contact with Harry not to listen to the Carrows).
* Why on Earth did Voldemort allow known members of the Order of the Phoenix to work at Hogwarts, educating the next generation of potential Death Eaters instead of killing them and replacing all the lessons with propaganda? Young children are relatively easy to brainwash most of the time, so why was the whole school not staffed totally by Death Eaters?
** And it is stated in the books that Voldemort idolizes hogwarts and the teachers, to him it's the real home he never had and everything he wished to have. He could only bring himself to destroy the teachers from his school if they openly opposed him; he did receive the best magic teaching at hogwarts after all; and surely, with Dumbledore and Potter dead and defeated, the remaining techers would understand that he is almighty and all powerful and wouldn't dare to cross him. Voldie is the Evil Overlord made flesh.
** None of the teachers are members of the Order except Snape (who's a triple agent), Moody and Lupin (who no longer teach). Harry himself tells that to Slughorn at the beginning of book 6. Beside, you never see Flitwick or [=McGonagall=] around Grimmauld Place do you? The teachers ARE supporters of Dumbledore however, but Voldemort could hardly kill them all and keep the school running (as was his plan by making attendance obligatory). He'd then have to fill the school with Death Eaters, and seeing as there's only 20 active death eaters at most, that would hardly be practical.
*** Actually, [=McGonagall=] did come to Grimauld Place once in Book 5. I don't have it in front of me, but I seem to remember something like Harry thinking she looked very odd in a muggle dress.
*** So use the Imperius Curse on them. Simple.
*** Except the Curse can be resisted, especially when used for long periods of time. Since Voldemort was planning to control Hogwarts forever (He didn't know he'd be defeated in a year, after all), it would be akward to keep the teachers imperiused (Barty Crouch Sr. 9 months to shake off the curse, Harry was able to do it after a few short applications). I wouldn't want to be one of the Carrow Siblings when Flitwick or [=McGonnagall=] breaks free of the curse and decides it's time to kick your ass. Voldemort probably figured that with his "loyal" Death Eater Snape in charge, he didn't need to do anything else to keep the teachers in line, after all, he just had to tell the teacher that if they step out of line, the kids will be the one to get most of the punishment.
* The giant AssPull from the seventh book, "the trace." It's a complete flip-flop from the rest of the series that explicitly stated that the Ministry couldn't detect WHO was doing magic, just where.
** I always thought it was more like the Trace could detect underage ''wizards'', not underage ''magic,'' so they could tell if magic was performed in the vicinity of an underage wizard, but they still wouldn't know if they'd actually performed the magic or someone else.
** So when Dobby performed magic at Privet Drive Harry got in trouble. How about all those underage kids that have older friends doing magic, or their family at home constantly performing magic around them? Do they get whisked off to be tried at the ministry as well? Alternatively, underage wizards could get away with doing magic in their own house as long as older wizards lived there.
*** WordOfGod states that for underage wizards who live with wizard families, the Ministry more or less trusts the parents to control the children. What they're mostly concerned about is magic performed in Muggle areas, what with that pesky Statute of Secrecy and all. So Dobby's pudding trick wouldn't have called upon Ministry officials if he'd tried it while Harry was staying with the Weasleys, for example.
*** "the Trace could detect underage ''wizards'', not underage ''magic,'' so they could tell if magic was performed in the vicinity of an underage wizard, but they still wouldn't know if they'd actually performed the magic or someone else." If this is true, then why doesn't Harry get in trouble in [=GoF=] when Arthur reverses the Engorgement Charm on Dudley's tongue? Or when Tonks magically packs Harry's trunk and cleans Hedwig's cage in [=OotP=]? There was no way for the Ministry to know that there were adult wizards/witches at Privet Drive at those times, so why wouldn't they immediately assume that Harry was the one doing magic?
*** Arthur is the head of the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts department. Tonks is an Auror. Either of them could easily have left a note with the relevant Ministry department of 'I may be using magic in this vicinity today; disregard alarms from that location' and passed it off as official business.
** If the Trace can only detect if ''someone'' nearby is casting magic, then when an underage Tom Riddle murdered the Riddles, why wasn't the ministry at all curious about an underage wizard casting magic in an area where no underage wizards lived? (Or was Tom 17 when he did that?)
*** We're never really told what age Tom is when he kills his dad and grandparents. Either he was old enough to not have the trace, there wasn't a trace at the time (it was 50 years ago), or the least likly but still possible he didn't directly kill them but later claimed to. Keep in mind he'd have been 17 halfway through year 6 because his birthday is on December 31st. He could have done it over the christmas break in his 6th year.
*** The Gaunts lived way out away from town and were all magic. Yes, technically Morfin was living by himself, but the Ministery didn't necessarily know that. All they would have known was that someone used magic in a place that they already knew was the residence of a magical family, a family with a daughter no less (so for all they knew, Merope still lived there and had a child, or even that they had younger magic relatives staying over).
* Why on earth did Harry take Hedwig with him in ''a cage'' in book 7 when they were doing that clone thing? Or take her with him at all? He could have just sent her away with a letter to keep her safe. What exactly was the cage meant to accomplish? Protect her?! It just seems Rowling put her there so she could kill her off.
** That's how he was trying to keep her safe. She's already been injured in the past when he's sent her off on mail runs--with both Voldemort and the Ministry out to get him, keeping her home is in her best interests. It just sucks that someone decided to kill her anyway.
*** Also keep in mind that he had her stored inbetween his knees inside the sidecar, meaning she would have been well protected for flying spells. It was only after the bike spun upside down, causing the cage to fall out, that she became vulnerable.
** Don't forget, all the other Harrys had fake snowy owls in cages. The Death Eaters all know Harry has an owl so sending her off beforehand would look suspicious.
** They sort of resolved this in the movie. Harry lets her fly instead, so none of the other "Harrys" had to have a fake Hedwig. [[{{TearJerker}} She dies trying to protect Harry.]]
* Why did Regulus sacrifice himself to retrieve the horcrux? The fact that Kreacher had escaped from his situation before and that elves can apparate with humans alongside them (such as Mundugus) should have told him that it was perfectly possible to leave that place alive with the damn thing, simply by repeating the events of last time; have Kreacher drink the potion, grab the locket, have him drink from the lake, and hold onto him while giving him an order to apparate back home and take Regulus with him. Sure, this would have meant Kreacher would be in horrible pain again, but was it worth his life to insure that didn't happen, when he himself was going to suffer the same pain beforehand? Was he so guilty over his actions that he deliberately decided on a suicidal plan to obtain the horxcrux?
** Because Regulus joined the Death Eaters more out of spite than really believing in their Pureblood supremacy BS, andhe regretted it. Also, Kreacher respected his master because, unlike Sirius and everybody else, Regulus treated Kreacher as his equal; you know, the same relationship Harry has with Dobby. Kreacher realizes this, and even if he doesn't admire Potter outright, he starts hating him less and even respects the half-blood for wanting to honor the Black family and making Voldemort pay for (in Kreacher's eyes) hurting his master. Kreacher becomes half-crazy from the paradox of having served his master so well and to the letter that he allowed him to effectively commit suicide, and then left him to die alone and was forbidden from telling anybody.
** Maybe he...didn't want to make his friend, even if he is a house-elf, drink a potion that makes him relive horrible experiences, wish for death, and barely come out alive with nursing? If he had made Kreacher go through that again, a lot of people would have seen that as his crossing the MoralEventHorizon.
*** I think Kreacher was much, much more hurt and traumatized by the fact that not only did Regulus die, but that he had to leave him behind as he was being killed. Given the choice between that and the potion, I think Kreacher would have taken the potion in an instant.
*** Kreacher may have been willing to do it, but Regulus may not have been wiling to do it to him. It's easier to sacrifice oneself than to inflict that same horror on someone else. Harry certainly wouldn't have done it to Dumbledore if he wasn't explicitly and repeatedly ordered to.
** Regulus was a dead man either way. He stole Voldemort's horcrux, one of (at the time) 5 artifacts that makes sure Voldemort can't die. He also had a tattoo that would lead Voldemort straight to him in the case of defection. Regulus knew he was dead either way, so he sacrificed himself to zombies rather than have the death eaters hunt him down.
** I was under the impression that Reg sacrificed himself specifically to spare his family both the shame of his defection plus the wrath of Voldemort when he discovered his soul-hidey place was gone.
*** Which he DIDN'T until mere hours before the Battle of Hogwarts.
* Why is it that no one has a problem with Draco Malfoy naming his son [[NamesToRunAwayFromReallyFast Scorpius]]? The family theme-naming is fine with me and I understand that the wizarding world has different naming traditions, but I've never heard any stories about benevolent scorpions.
** Because it's [[RuleOfCool awesome]]. And hey, Draco's named after dragons, which in the Potterverse tend not to be very benevolent either.
** Draco and Scorpius are also constellations, which is similar to how Sirius and Regulus are named after stars.
* Page 167, Hermione says she has never done a memory charm. However, three chapters ago she stated that she had charmed her parents to move to Australia, assume new identities, and forget their only daughter. Care to explain it to me?
** Possible she used the confundous charm mentioned in book 3, the one that confuses you enough that the Minister will buy the kids thinking Sirius is good. Though thanks for pointing that out to me I forgot about that line.
*** She ''changed'' their memories, she didn't ''remove'' them. Different spells.
**** So, after the war was over and Voldemort was dead, did she go back to Australia and save them? If so, would she be able to recreate their memories of her?
***** That's not what he meant. There are two types of memory charms, one that destroys the old memory (the one Hermione had never done and presumably much harder) and one that "layers" a new, false memory on top of the old one (the one she did do). No recreation is necessary, she merely undoes the false memory, and the original memories are returned as normal.
***** As stated above, there are two different memory spells- Obliviate, which, well, obliterates a memory or else renders it inaccessible (more the latter, as it is stated in Phoenix that Lockhart was getting his memory back), and Confundus, which is what is used on Marietta Edgecombe in Phoenix to lie about the DA meetings, and frequently on Dawlish the auror (notably in Hallows when he gives a separate date for Harry's removal from Privet Drive), and alters memories, or, confounding them. The latter was most likely what Hermione used.
** If Obliviate completely removes memories, why does the Ministry official on the Muggle camping ground-owner in [=GoF=]? Why wouldn't he realise that he had hours of blank space where a memory should be? Wouldn't modifying/replacing the memory make more sense that just leaving the guy with hours of missed time/blank space that you would expect him to get suspicious of? Also, Harry says a couple of lines later that he "recognised the symptoms of one who had just had their memory ''modified.''" So apparantly Harry thinks that Obliviate modifies rather than replaces memories.
*** The first time we see Obliviate is from Lockhart who probably intentionally either removed the memories or modified them to make the person believe he did the events. The only reason he completely lost his memory was because of the broken wand and he was intentionally trying to remove their memories. I believe a properly cast Obliviate modifies the memories rather than removing them, which makes more sense in the Muggle's situation as he'll have his memories modified so he'll forget any "irregularities".
** She said she confounded her parents. That doesn't mean she did. My mother has a fragment in a series of HP fragments where Hermione's parents were actually killed by Death Eaters. Hermione lying is more in-character for her than her confounding her parents.
*** This troper is intrigued [[strike:[[MemeticMutation and would to subscribe to your newsletter]]]]. Could you elaborate?
* Fred died in the battle of Hogwarts (as much as I'd like to pretend he didn't.) So what happened to his hand on the clock Mrs. Weasley has, the one that has the name of each Weasley and tells where they are at any given time?
** I guess it might be stuck in "mortal peril" (the last position it was likely in) until somebody removes it, if it is possible. Either that, or the clock is enchanted to permanently vanish the hands of any deceased family members.
*** ^That, or it's stuck on "trapped eternally in the otherworldly abyss". It'll switch to either "Living in eternal glory" or "Getting raped by the raging fires of the damned" depending on how the judge rules.
** Perhaps it changed from "Fred" to "Fleur", thus defaulting to the newest member of the Weasley family?
** Or maybe the handle simply fell off, evaporated or (since we ''are'' talking about Fred here) exploded?
* Did Hermione's parents ever get de-brainwashed? Were they ever confirmed as back in Great Britain or still in Australia, or were they [[WhatHappenedToTheMouse simply never mentioned again]]?
** Simply never mentioned again as the after events of the finale left them in Australia. It's possible that Hermione went and found them later but unless a WordOfGod comes out about it we don't know.
*** [[http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/7/30/j-k-rowling-web-chat-transcript Ctrl+ f "memory damage"]]
** No, they're currently running a dental office in Melbourne with their adult son, Henry, and teenaged daughter named Hermione (they always wanted a daughter so they can name her that).
** This troper believes that Rowling did confirm that Hermione tracked them down and fixed up their memories.
*** Meh. More "Word of God" stuff. Would it have killed her to write the story in such a way that this stuff actually gets mentioned within the books and not in various interviews she gives after the event, therefore giving the impression that she is making it up to cover plot holes...?
*** If she did that with everything, the bookseries would've been twice as long.
**** No one like plotholes.
**** An unresolved subplot is not a plot hole.
***** Not mentioning all specific things that happened in between the last chapter and the epilogue is not a plot hole. Stop using that term when it does not apply.
***** Still, no-one likes unresolved subplots either.
**** She introduced the subplot to explain something no fan ever specifically asks (why did Hermione's parents let her come?), it's not unreasonable to hope that she would resolve this without having to be asked either. While I didn't wonder too much about it (so distracted was I by, you know, the massive deaths that still had me crying), I think the foresight she had to include Hermione's excuse for leaving her parents could (easily) have included the resolution. Then again, she may not have anticipated the fact that people seem to find the use of [[MindManipulation memory charms disturbing]], and so perhaps she completely forgot it where fans that zoom in on that topic were left wondering.
**** Hermione said in the book that if she survived the battle against Voldemort, she'd go find her parents and reverse the charm. Since she survived, I believe it's safe to say she tracked them down and unbrainwashed them.
* Two matters recently came to my attention. They always pitch a tent and camp out for the night, but they happen to have a bag with theoretically limitless space: why don't they tuck that away and stay in THERE!? The other thing is Hagrid: how can he possibly exist? Conception would be quite the task. If his father was the giant, it wouldn't fit. If his mother was, it'd be very very messy.
** The answer to the first question is, really, "How would they get out again?". And what if something happened to the bag while they were inside it? As for the second... his mother was the giantess. This is mentioned in at least two books (Goblet of Fire and Half-Blood Prince). One assumes that Hagrid's father was either extremely well-endowed, or had quite good aim.
*** What's the Rumiko Takahashi quote again? "I don't think about it, and neither should you?"
**** [[MST3KMantra Just repeat to yourself "It's just a book, I should really just relax"]].
*** Human male midgets can and do father children with women of average height. Likewise, women with gigantism can marry normal-sized men and raise families. The biology works.
*** Genitalia in humans tends not to vary too much, even with dwarfism or gigantism entering the picture. Giants being another species who are explicitly described as ridiculously huge, one imagines that ''their'' junk ''is'' scaled up.
**** The problem I had with this is, logistics of the thing aside, why would Mr Hagrid (a wizard) be ''attracted'' to Mrs Hagrid? After all we are not talking about a human woman who just happens to be 20feet tall, we are talking about a female member of a species who are described as looking like green/grey mountains with mis-shapen boulders for heads. Certainly doesn't turn ''my'' crank and I can't imagine it would for anyone else. Not to mention the probably language barrier given how ostracised giants are....
**** Uh, [[{{Fetish}} people bang horses and sheep]], too. There are always going to be people out there with bizarre fetishes - the only difference here is that the fetishist and his fetish can leave behind a baby, which sheds light on their unusual behavior where a dude might hump cows his entire life and no one else would ever find out about it.
**** Perhaps he likes REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY big butts and he can not lie? Other brother's might deny, but when a giant booty shambles in he gets SPRUNG, son...
**** Considering the mother ran off after he was born and Mr. Hagrid raised him since then it sounds like it was a REALLY wild one-night stand that ended with a basket on the doorstep.
**** There are people who have giantess fetishes in RealLife. Hagrid's father was probably one of them.
**** Who says he was attracted to her? She was attracted to him, obviously. If a 20 foot tall, violent monster decides she's into you, she may not take no for an answer. Oh, and as for the genitalia issue, I'd like to point out that among apes, genital size does not correlate to body size, really, at all. An adult gorilla has about twice the mass of an adult human and yet the genitalia are many times smaller. So there's no reason to assume giants and humans are necessarily incompatible in that department.
** The tent had the same properties as the bag. On the outside it looked like a tiny pup tent, but inside it was as big as a 3 bedroom apartment.
*** It's not quite the same. The bag is more subject to damage than the tent, what with it being tinier and more fragile.
**** Plus, someone could just pick the thing up and walk off with it while they were inside. I doubt any of them would want to go to sleep and wake up to find that some dog dragged them two miles in the opposite direction they were heading.
***** Or ever.
* In ''[[HarryPotterAndTheHalfBloodPrince Half-Blood Prince]]'', Lupin tells Harry that there are no Wizarding royals. Yet when Neville faces Voldemort, Voldemort refers to the Longbottom family as "noble" and [[WeCanRuleTogether urges Neville to join his cause]]. Has anyone satisfactorily explained what "noble" means here?
** It's a reference to how old the Longbottom family is as a pureblood line. Some pureblood ideals hold that being pureblood means they're above everyone else. It's referenced earlier with the "The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black" that some purebloods think they are socially superior to other familes. Specifically in the Black's case being a Black made some of them think they were royalty. Voldemort was trying to say that Neville is superior to "less pure lines" and hoping he'll surrender to avoid ending a precious pureblood line.
** Moreover, Voldemort grew up among British Muggles in the mid-20th century, so probably shared some of their class consciousness. He might even have intended to institute noble titles among wizarding folk once he took over the world, to ''formally'' elevate pureblood families over those with Muggle ancestry.
*** The idea of purebloods being nobility/royalty predates Voldemort. The book about pureblood families Hermione reads is called "Nature's Nobility" and Marvolo Gaunt mistakes the sign of the Deathly Hallows for his coat of arms. Also, it seems extremely suspect that Voldemort would seek to apply aspects of Muggle society to the wizarding world, not to mention the fact that his entire view of Muggle society came from a ''working class'' orphanage.
------
* So if Harry couldn't die until the Horcrux part of him was exterminated, does this mean that in ''every other occasion'' where he nearly gets killed (and there are too many too count)... Harry ''wouldn't'' have been killed, anyway?
** Not necessarily. If for instance he'd died from the Basilisk Venom in Chamber he'd have died for real horcrux and all. Any point after Goblet of Fire where Voldemort takes his blood is up in the air depending on the circumstances. The main reason Harry survived though is because of the Elder Wand. Dumbledore had originally planned it so that when it came time Harry would die and that would be it. The plan changed once Draco became the Elder Wand's master and finally when Harry won the wand himself. The wand realized Harry's intentions and thus killed the horcrux in him but left him relatively free from harm, but also thanks to Voldemort's creating something similar to a horcux for Harry by using his blood in his resurection.
** Probably not, except for the basilisk incident. He COULD have gotten his soul sucked out of him in the third book, though, so that would be just as bad. And at any time he appears to be in mortal danger, his friends were usually also at risk of being killed, so he always had something big to lose if not his own life.
** He very well have been able to "die," but possibly his spirit would have continued on in the same hazy, half-dead form that Voldemort's was in until he was able to complete the resurrection spell in Goblet of Fire. However, since Harry likely would not have known * how* to possess others and bring himself back, he would have been stuck in AFateWorseThanDeath.
** Unless Harry was killed by some means that could destroy a horcrux, the horcrux would have been fine. It just would have been a corpse that wouldn't rot instead of a human being. Similarly, if Neville had killed Nagini with any old weapon, Voldemort would have gone from having a live snake horcrux to having a dead snake horcrux ... but Neville used ''the Sword of Gryffindor,'' which was capable of destroying both Nagini and horcrux at the same time.
*** Your comment about the Sword of Gryffindor actually just gave me a new question, where I had never been bothered by it before... Voldemort destroys the Horcrux in Harry by using 'Avada Kedavra'. But a big portion of the book is trying to find ways to destroy the horcruxes. Why couldn't they have used Avada Kedavra on the inanimate horcruxes? The part of Harry that is ALIVE wasn't impacted by the curse, so apparently it can 'kill' just the pieces of soul, too. And the Trio certainly wouldn't have had any problem getting up the feelings necessary to 'mean' they wanted to kill the horcrux, nor would they be at risk of splitting their own souls because they wouldn't have been killing a person.
**** Either they never even thought about it or they didn't think they'd be able to do it. Assuming they thought about it they could have either come to the (possibly mistaken) realization that it wouldn't work properly or they couldn't get the spell right. We're not really sure casting Avada Kedavra on a horcrux would do anything but set it on fire as we've only seen it used on inanimate objects a few times before.
**** Ah, but Voldemort did that AK with the Elder Wand -- the most powerful wand there is, the only one that was able to repair Harry's. Maybe AK wouldn't work on a Horcrux from a regular wand, just from the Deathstick? Of course, that leaves the question of why Dumbledore didn't give it to the Trio to destroy the Horcruxes. But he did give them the sword, in a way...and he felt (correctly) that the wand was extremely dangerous in the wrong hands.
***** The Deathstick cannot be given willingly. It will only reveal its full potential if the new owner subdues the old one, without any agreements between them and without giveaways.
**** Additionally, Avada Kedavra takes a great deal of power to perform. False-Moody says in the fourth book that the whole class could have pointed their wands at him and said the words and virtually nothing would have happened.
* Whatever happened to that Firebolt? During the airborne chase, the broomstick spins to the ground. Wouldn't there be some chance of a little Muggle boy happening to find the broom, stuck in his backyard tree- then later, playing horsie on it, and propelling himself into the ceiling or something?
** Even the wizard kids have to be taught how to use broomsticks before they can fly. It seems likely that it would just be a broom with delusions of grandeur in the hands of a Muggle. Until Harry casts ''accio Firebolt'' and it flies back to its master.
*** That's a good point. Of course, Neville didn't know beans about broomsticks but broke his wrist anyway. So yeah...
**** Neville is also a wizard with significant inborn magical abilities. WE also saw that brooms are not easy to command for the inexperienced even when trying way back during their first lesson. I would not be surprised to find out that brooms are sort of like wands, inherently magical but primary focus the weilder's natural power. So in the hands of a Muggle a broom is useless, otherwise they'd be illegal.
* All right, so the above discussion on the Elder Wand didn't seem to address this one. Harry was supposedly the master of the Elder Wand because he disarmed the previous master. But he didn't actually take it from said previous master. He won Draco's own personal wand. So we're supposed to believe that the Elder Wand allies itself with whoever disarms its master of ''any'' wand at ''any'' time? And if this is the case, Harry putting the wand away at the end so that the chain would be broken wouldn't really do much, would it, because if he ever got disarmed ''at all'', the wand would then have a new master...?
** True however it depends on whether he wants to be disarmed or not. Dumbledore's original plan wanted him to be disarmed by Snape and thus the loyalty would never have left him. However he didn't want Draco to disarm him thus change in loyalty. If Harry did get disarmed against his will it will then depend on where Harry hid the Elder Wand. It wouldn't matter who was the master if the wand had stayed in Dumbledore's grave.
** I just took it to mean that the Elder Wand has a very generous definition of "defeat". If its current owner loses at ''anything'', the Wand goes to the other guy instead. In theory, the Elder Wand could be transferred in a game of Rock Paper Scissors. Meaning that for Dumbledore to have held onto it for as long as he did, he had to win ''every battle, competition, and game'' in his life.
*** It may just be that Voldemort had ''never'' been the wand's master. It went from Dumbledore to Draco to Harry. It's possible that if Harry had defeated Draco somehow, but Draco still got his hands on the Elder Wand, it would still have worked for him. Rowling is (possibly intentionally) vague on the rules of wand ownership, probably because she'd spent the last decade or so putting up with everyone questioning and picking apart every magical rule she laid down.
** Okay, but still none of you have addressed the issue (as the OP so long ago, I know what I was asking, and it still bugs me to this day). ''"And if this is the case, Harry putting the wand away at the end so that the chain would be broken wouldn't really do much, would it, because if he ever got disarmed ''at all'', the wand would then have a new master...?"''
* Why is EVERY good guy such a pussy? They have a perfect chance to stop Tom "Voldemort Hitler Dracula" Riddle's army with the killing curse, yet they just knock them out. I don't think it's unforgivable when it's used to stop the freaking holocaust? That's like having the choice of shooting a Nazi General in the face with an 50 caliber rifle or hitting him on the head with a flower pot and taking option 2 because you don't want his blood on your hands (possibly ensuring the deaths of 1,000 innocent people).
** GodwinsLaw. Seriously though use of the Killing Curse has more effects on wizards than initially thought. It's up in the air but apparently a fully cast Avada Kevada can shatter the user's soul even if they're not making Horcruxes. It's generally thought by the public that only really bad people can use it as you really have to want that person dead to successfully cast it. On the line in the middle of a fight you might have a last minute regret doing all the syllables putting you in a tight spot and wasted magic and time.
*** A: There are plenty of ways to kill someone with magic; Incendio, etc. The problem with using the Killing Curse is that it literally does nothing other than kill someone; QED from the Christian perspective Rowling seems to be writing from, it rips a person's soul out of his body, and seems to powered by hatred rather than just anger or self-preservation. Also, it's been bugging me how many entries here don't seem to distinguish between murder and self-defense when they say that killing rips the soul apart.
*** A: As Dumbledore says, murder is not as easy as the innocent believe. It's easy enough to say you ''would'' kill someone in a certain circumstance, it's quite another to experience it. B: Not wanting to kill people doesn't make someone a "pussy" it makes them a person with a basic respect for human life. Which alone makes that person far superior to a Death Eater.
** "The power of a soul untarnished and whole" was kind of what gave the good guys power over the bad. Dumbledore pointed out that murder breaks the soul and Voldemort was all too happy to rip his apart.
** When? At the beginning? The implication is that some of them ''do'' use the Killing Curse--Remus, at the very least, admonishes Harry for not being willing to risk the lives of enemy combatants, and Aurors were authorized to kill people during the first war.
** It's established that you have to ''really'' want to honestly and truly cast any of the Unforgivables. This means that in order for any of the good guys to use the Killing Curse, they'd have to really, ''really'' want to ''murder'' someone. And somehow, this troper doubts that "I'm killing this person to stop them, even though I don't want to kill at all" would count.
** It's also kinda possible to kill people without using an Unforgivable Curse (and thus skipping over all the "you must really mean it" and "your soul will be shredded" risks). Point your wand at someone's head and say "Reducto" and see what happens.
*** Which makes me still wonder why Harry used Cruciatus instead of (say) Sectumsempera on Carrow.
*** Exactly. There are lethal spells other than the Unforgivables, and its not "murder" to ''shoot back at the people trying to kill you in a war''.
* What happened to Voldemort's body? His soul (or what remains of it) [[FateWorseThanDeath is trapped in Limbo]], and the bodies of the Death Eaters are briefly mentioned as being set aside in an old classroom. But where is his final resting place?
** It's mentioned that they buried him in the school grounds.
*** Did they? Despite knowing that it was an unprecedented privilege to allow Dumbledore be buried there?
* Does Harry have a mullet? Because I remember reading something about him having "hair down to his shoulders," and that would so FREAKIN' AWESOME!
** I have hair down to my shoulders, do I have a mullet? No, thank God.
** A mullet is a specific haircut. Harry(and probably a lot of the others hiding in the wilderness at the time) simply hadn't been able to go and get a haircut.
------
* Why does everyone go on about Rowling putting things in this book ''only'' to screw with shippers? Yes, this troper knows that Rowling has taken a number of [[TakeThat take-that's]] to Harmonians and the like, but couldn't it just be that she wrote the Epilogue to show that Harry and his friends actually have a happy life for once? This troper also read a review were someone complained that Rowling only mentioned that Sirius had the girl pictures in his room to ruin slash fanfiction ('cause there's no way he could have been bisexual, nope). Why do people have to act like every little thing that doesn't go their way was some conspiracy to ruin their fanfiction options? It's not like canon has ever prevented people from doing slash and the like.
** Probably because the epilogue doesnt show they had a great life. It's nothing more than a badly written "here's what we named our various kids..."
*** Wouldn't a life in which they were settled and not being chased by crazed murderers be a step up?
*** Not if it's badly written.
* During the trios' avoiding-capture-picnic they are constantly searching for food: buying it from supermarkets via the cloak or eating mushrooms and the like. Now I know that there is this rule of "no summoning eatery" but there is a way to extend already existent food. Why by Merlin's beard did they not do that?!
** Hermione mentioned that it ''was'' possible to make more food if they already had some. The one possible explanation was that none of them actually knew how to do it. The only reason given in the book - very sarcastically by Ron - was that the food that they had with them was so bad that there was no desire to make more of it. As for why they didn't just Summon food from inside of a house or something, they'd probably be worried that someone would notice food zooming around places and they'd be found.
*** They spent a whole summer preparing for the quest. How come they didn't gathered a stash of provision either in the Burrow or in Hermione's BagOfHolding?
*** This troper always assumed that they did, but Hermione unpacked it at Grimauld Place.
*** I'm fairly certain Hermione stated that she had food, but she took it out because she assumed they'd come back to Grimmauld Place after their infiltration of the Ministry.
*** The "make more food if you have some" is what makes you scratch your head most. Hit the dumpster of ANY resturaunt and you're sure to find a bit of clean food if you're willing to lower your standards, or buy ONE 99-cent cheeseburger and everyone should be well-fed!
**** Perhaps the extending of the food you have also duplicates the mould etc. So, one cheeseburger would only last a day or two duplicated, before it becomes completely inedible. Also, would you really want to eat cheeseburgers for every meal for an indefinite amount of time?
***** Actually I wouldn't mind eating the same thing for every meal of every day, I've attempted it but my school serves something different for lunch everyday.
* In the earlier books, the Unforgivables are, well, ''unforgivable.'' The good guys don't use them, and it was a sign that Crouch had been getting as bad as the Death Eaters that his people had used them. Fast forward two books, and we have the good guys using both Crucio (successfully!) and Imperio. I'm not complaining that the good guys aren't perfect; I'm complaining that this change is ''never mentioned''. There's no sort of "Look how far we've fallen" or attempt at justification or guilt or anything to mark that the good guys are suddenly using spells that are - or were - Unforgivable. Why?
** Crouch used it to round up criminals: even though they might have been Death Eaters, Voldemort wasn't in power and they weren't at war. Since the return of Voldemort however, it is a war, and hence the difference.
*** It's still bad writing to never mention this major change in additude toward the Unforgivables.
**** No, it isn't. First of all, "unforgivable" is not just a fancy word - it's a legal status. It's the wizarding court that didn't forgive them. Since the whole goverment is corrupted in DH Harry and Co are forgivable for not giving two strokes of a dead dog's cock about it. Secondly, the curses are nor equaly bad: Imperious is obviously the least severe and neither Harry nor [=McGonagall=] use it to force people do any embarrassing stuff. As for Harry's Cruciatus, keep in mind that Amicus tormented the school for a year and was willing to set children up under Voldemort's wrath just to save his cowardly hide. Oh yeas, and he spit on [=McGonagall=]. Harry just gave in to a more sinister but still momentary impulse than the one with Bellatrix, that is all. And anyway, with Voldemort approaching and one Horcrux still not found it's not as if they were in any position to take to psychological self-analysis and "What have we become" monologues. It would've just broken the pacing of the scene.
*** The situation has drastically changed. It's like murder is unforgivable, but a soldier killing an enemy combatant in wartime is no longer murder. I don't think the author has to write a justification for it. It's subjective of course, but sometimes, less is more, and most good books don't spell everything out.
**** The most simple explanation is that the law has officially been changed at this point. The Ministry is now being controlled by Voldemort and one of the changes he's made is that the Unforgiveable curses are no longer illegal. Remember at Hogwarts, students are encouraged to use these curse on other students for practice now. Technically, Harry's use of the Imperius and Cruciatus curses in book seven is not illegal at this point.
**** Except that Harry used Crucio on Bellatrix in Order of the Phoenix, before Voldemort took control of the ministry (Fudge was still in power).
**** Illegal and immoral are two very different things. Just because torturing someone in a way that canonically requires you to enjoy it or controlling someone's mind is legal doesn't mean it's moral. And there was never, at any point, room for a discussion or at least a ''mention'' of this important change in philosophy? Come on.
***** Desperate times call for desperate measures. When they used the Imperius, it was in the middle of an unprecedented break-in during which there was no time to stop and go, "Hey, what are you doing?" And afterwards, since their unprecedented and heretofore IMPOSSIBLE break-in had actually been successful, all it proved was using extreme measures was successful in an extreme circumstance, and nobody was complaining. This Troper actually found it more realistic if, after the break-in, none of the trio was comfortable sitting and going, "So, who wants to talk about that Imperius curse we just used and how horrible it was?" and everyone just wanted to move on from it. It's easy to set absolutes for "This is what we will never do" when everything's fine and dandy and there's a safety net to catch you when you fall, but when your back's against the wall, you do whatever it takes. That said, when forced to resort to something truly unpleasant, sometimes you just want to put it behind you.
****** That is not the point. Having to resort in something morally ambiguous/wrong because there is no other choice is fine, as log it is acknowledge this was a bad thing to do, but there were no other way. The problem is that the entire series kept saying how evil the Unforgivable were and how bad is to use them, but suddenly, in the last book it is not an issue anymore. There is no WhatTheHellHero moment, no questioning if it was the right thing, nothing. It is like the Unforgivable were suddenly OK since it is the heroes who were using.
******* No, it's not. It's clear that the heroes have descended into pretty morally ambiguous territory. It doesn't take the author beating the reader over the head with that message to figure it out. The fact that Harry was able to successfully use the Cruciatus curse at all shows that he's in a really dark place. McGonnagal having a conversation with him to the effect of, "Gosh, Harry, I can see you're obviously filled with inner turmoil!" "Yeah, professor, that act I just committed was really morally ambiguous!" would have been stupid.
* Voldemort hid the diadem in the Room of Requirements some 20 years before the events of the books. He was adamantly sure that he was the only one who'd EVER discovered the room. Uhm, is Rowling implying that all those ''mountains'' of stuff accumulated there in mere 20 or so years and that nobody in the long history of Hogwarts had ever found it before?!
** It depends largely on what he thought to open the room with. If he thought "I need someplace that no one has been before" he'd get an empty room to store the diadem. The room appears differently to different people and changes drastically in your word usage.
*** Fair enough. So, how did the diadem end up in the common storage then?
** He's very vain. I'm sure he expected all of that stuff to have been magically generated as a way to hide the diadem, and I'm sure some of it was magically generated at one point or another.
** My interpretation was that Voldemort assumed he was the only person who knew the Room of Requirement could be summoned ''at will''. Every single other person who ever came across the room until the DA stumbled into it completely by chance and never worked out that it could be done again. This is shown as another sign of Voldemort's arrogance, since he never realized that the House Elves were fully aware of the room.
* Voldemort deduced that he wasn't the true master of the Elder Wand because it didn't conjure any differently from his own wand. He decided he had to kill Snape to master the wand and so he did and...then what? Shouldn't he have realised that the wand ''still'' performed on the same level as before and thus that something was wrong? Or what, in that hour when he was waiting for Harry to come to him, he didn't even test the wand at least once? He did use the Sonorus spell to demand Harry to come, so what the hell?
** It's likely that he didn't think anything else could go wrong after he'd killed the previous master (in his mind Snape). Regardless he was probably very distracted by killing the only one that could defeat him and by that point ''didn't care'' that the wand didn't feel stronger.
*** Why are your hands suddenly moving in such...wavery motion?
* Shouldn't Voldemort become a ghost? I mean, it's people who fear death who come back as ghosts, right?
** He became that screaming baby-from-hell thing in the ethereal King Cross. There wasn't enough soul in him for a whole ghost.
*** That was a remarkably reasonable, satisfying answer for this page.
* Just had a case of literal Fridge Logic, how come Harry can still see at this point in the series. If you need glasses at that young, your eyesight will get progressively worse as you age and there is never indication of Harry getting a stronger prescription. Wouldn't he be blind as a bat by now?
** Glasses do not have a negative or progressive affect on eyesight. That's just an old wives tale. The natural progression of nearsightedness means that it progressively gets worse on its own during the childhood/teen/young adult years, then it reaches a plateau only to start going in the other direction during middle age/old age, meaning that someone can be nearsighted as a child and farsighted as an old man. And again, let me reiterate that this has absolutely nothing to do with the presence of prescription eye wear.
** It's actually a bit more vague than that as the Dursley's only ever gave him glasses out of a bargin bin and I doubt they'd have checked the prescription very often (if ever) even at that young of an age. It depends on his eyesight but in some cases if someone gets stronger prescriptions regularly then their eyes get lazy and deteriorate faster. It's possible he's on the low end of his glasses and simply has adjusted to being able to see well enough (plus there's always magic).
** This troper had glasses in the third grade (age eight, so probably not too far off from Harry) and is now 18, yet I got my last prescription at 12. Eyesight deterioration varies incredibly widely between individuals, so it's not inconceivable that Harry got his last pair at ten. I could be totally wrong, this is experience over medical knowledge talking. Probably more accurate to the real reason though, this is a book about ''wizards'' and ''magic'' and the '''fight against evil.''' Do you really want to read about Harry's trip to the eye doctor? Eyeglasses are good distinguishing features, but to an author? Just another feature unless they get [[BlindWithoutEm lost]] or [[DroppedGlasses broken]]. That eye doctor trip might well happen, just offscreen and JKR didn't think it was worth a throwaway line.
** Are you serious? Not everyone who has glasses as a kid ends up going blind. Especially not by the time they're seventeen. I wouldn't worry about it.
*** I think what really should bug in this aspect is how come Harry never attempted to fix his eyesight in all those years?! Puny muggles can do that but mighty wizards with abilities to grow bones ab initio and heal near-lethal wounds can't?
**** 1) Sure, maybe they just can't. Magic can't do everything. Lots of characters wear glasses, including Dumbledore, a contender for most powerful wizard in the world. 2) Spells for altering your body are risky -- remember Eloise Midgen's nose. 3) Even if we assume that it can be done and done safely, it would presumably take a specialist, so when was Harry supposed to go to one? Most people who have permanent nonessential surgery don't do it while they're still kids in school. 4) If all that isn't enough, maybe Harry is just ''fine with wearing glasses'', for God's sake. It's not a prohibitively debilitating handicap. I can't believe this is even being asked.
** First, Magic seems to have a unique interaction with eyes. I think they mention at one point that Dragons are almost completely invulnerable to magic except for the eyes. Second, giving a character a physical flaw like that is humanizing. Harry Potter is a boy who can wave a wand and create fire, adding flaws like his bad attitude in Books 5 and 6 and his eyesight make him easier to relate to.
*** This troper's eyesight has actually improved as he gets older
* Dumbledore has Snape pass the sword to Harry in a wildly convoluted way so that if Voldemort reads Snape's mind he doesn't learn about it (apparently Snape had a hefty explanation ready of why he put a sword in a frozen lake in the middle of the forest). But wait, isn't he worried that if Voldemort reads Snape's mind he might learn that '''Snape'd been giving him the go-round for the past twenty years'''?
** Page 689: Dumbledore is concerned that Voldemort would learn this from reading Harry's mind, not Snape's.
*** My bad. But I thought it was established that reading Harry's mind causes Voldemort excruciating pain and in an earlier conversation with Snape Dumbledore assumed with confidence that Voldemort wouldn't try it again.
*** Wrong. Dumbledore said that '''possessing''' Harry caused Voldy excruciating pain. He didn't say squat about infiltrating his mind, otherwise he couldn't have 1) implanted the false vision of Sirius at the Ministry, and 2) read Harry's mind when he arrived and bailed Bellatrix, without both things being overly painful.
**** It wouldn't be too hard to suspect that Voldemort could order someone else to look into Harry's mind or another loyal death eater might find out on accident and pass it onto Voldemort. It was simply Dumbledore being overly cautious.
** Presumably they would have tried to be equally careful about Snape's other doings -- and remember, [[ChekhovsSkill he's very good at Occlumency]]. And at any rate, from what we've seen of Legilimency it only gives you images, not feelings or thoughts, and since Voldemort thought Snape was TheMole for ''him'', Snape would have had a plausible excuse for sitting in on meetings of the Order and stuff like that, as long as he was able to withhold or misrepresent the details. And beyond that, well, yeah, I'm sure they were worried, but that's what made it a brave thing to do.
** Another factor in the convoluted passing down of the sword was that, according to Dumbledore's portrait, there were specific conditions for being able to take the sword in the first place, a test of courage or time of need.
* Dumbledore couldn't give Harry the sword, but what about the Basilisk's fangs? He could safely give them to Harry back in the time of HBP, couldn't he?
** He could have suggested Harry could have gone back into the chamber for a basilisk fang if the one that was stabbed into the diary had run out of venom but there's a lot we don't know about the fangs. For instance taking them and then not using them might waste the venom that was storred in the fang when it died. It was probably easier just to have the sword passed on in secret.
* Where is the limit of magic? Voldemort tabooes his name with a curse that destroys every magical protection to anybody that says it. Why not curse the word "hello"? Why not the atmosphere to kill every muggle that breathes it? Why not make an Imperius curse to everybody, or make the death eaters invulnerable to all magic and weapons?
** The Taboo was practically (but, and this is the important part, ''not quite'') Deep Magic. It was very old, and very powerful, and the only two things it does are cut through (not batter down) any guarding spells that are weaker than it and act as a homing beacon for the person who cast it. Casting it on a word for which you are not on the watch would be a waste of effort, unless you knew exactly where your target was and just needed to get through a less powerful but still pretty darn strong spell to get at them and you didn't mind millions upon millions of false alarms. I think it may have also been limited to Great Britain, though I doubt that's canon. You can't curse the air or use an imperius curse on everybody because it takes too much power and (in the case of the imperius curse) focus, and you can't curse the air to kill muggles because it would be incredibly difficult to write and cast a spell with both the power and finesse to kill everybody, but only kill nonwizard humans, and because nobody insane enough to try has thought of, attempted, ''and'' succeeded at it.
* It might be a small detail, but it still bugs me... a lot. When the trio infiltrate the Ministry and Harry ''polyjuices'' into Runcorn they do not know who he is, Harry has not seen him... yet he is able to imitate his voice flawlessly.
** The thing about your voice staying the same once you've taken the polyjuice potion was only in the movie. In Chamber of Secrets it is explicitly stated that harry and ron's voices turn into crabbe and goyle's. This turns into Fridge Logic for me when you consider that Harry states in Deathly Hallows that he had never heard Goyle or Crabbes voice (I forget Which) before they were all in the room of requirement during the battle of hogwarts.
*** That was just LampshadeHanging on the fact that, despite being pretty big characters for seven books, those two never spoke at all until that point.
*** It still doesn't explain why harry was suprised when he heard him speak, though he should have heard it when they used the polyjuice potion.
**** You're remembering incorrectly. The exact quote is this: "We're gonna be rewarded," said Crabbe: His voice was surprisingly soft for such an enormous person; Harry ''had hardly ever heard him speak before.''
**** You hear your voice differently to how other people hear it, because the sound is transmitted to your ear through the skull. So hearing Crabbe's voice while polyjuiced into him isn't the same as hearing it while he's talking to you.
*** Not forgetting that Crabbe had been in all of Harry's potions and care of magical creatures classes -- surely Crabbe was called on to speak at some point?
*** Don't forget the fact that Crabbe was really, really, idiotic--the teachers probably gave up on him early on, but before then, Harry could've heard him speak once or twice in class--which is why he hardly ever heard him before, but not never--he apparently heard him speak once or twice before, it just wasn't recorded in the books for comedic effect.
[[/folder]]
------
[[folder: Unsorted Examples pt4]]
* Okay, I hope this hasn't been brought up and/or discussed to death already as I think dead horses shouldn't be abused, but was I the only one to be bothered by the fact that the supposed 'blood bath' in Deathly Hallows was not that...bad? To me it seemed like JKR basically made a list of characters she could kill off who came as close as possible to being proper major characters (but yet wouldn't matter so much to fans that said fans would fling themselves off cliffs en masse) as some kind of padding between the Sirius-Dumbledore combo previously, and Snape in this one. I mean come on: Colin Creevey - yes, terrible on account of him being so young and all, but hardly a major character - Lupin and Tonks - off-screen death, beloved characters but whose presence had been touch-and-go at best - Fred - Ok, disrupts the Fred&George balance as it's only the two put together that make a real character...and so on with the background characters. No wish to start a fan war here, it just bugs me. Obviously the main trio is untouchable, but if you really want to make your fantasy adventure 'mature' by pulling off an AnyoneCanDie, then do it right: kill off Neville or Ginny, etc. (...am I a horrible person?)
** Absolutely! Explicitely killing some of the main cast would mean that the bad guys really mean business. And the idea of fantards flinging themselves off cliffs is just adorable! It would be even more satisfying to read about then the massive bawwww-attack of some twat who learned that [[spoiler: Dumbledore]] was gay.
** No, you are not alone. Personally I figured that the entire book appeared to have been commanded by a list drawn up of "who can I kill that will have the most emotional impact for fans, but the least impact on the plot? Without egregiously crossing the limits of 'kid's book'?"
** Dude, in a school of only a few hundred people, at least fifty people died. That's more or less a bloodbath. What bothered me was that, even though they were major characters, the time spent focusing on their deaths was just so limited it didn't leave as much of an impact as even, say, Cedric's death from [=GoF=]. Yes, yes, I know, the plot didn't allow for much time to dwell on these things, but a lot of it still felt rather brushed-over. The transition from "loved ones dead" to "happily ever after" felt abrupt, as well (it may have been about a 20-year gap in book time, but to the readers it was only a few pages). And it also seems odd that Ron could make a joke about Peeves/the war ''just a couple hours after his brother died''. I'm just sayin'.
* Did Ariana Dumbledore get raped by the muggles when she was 6? I know it wasn't ever elaborated on more than "attack", but unless it was that bad it doesn't seem like anything less than rape would cause her to be that messed up and cause Percival to want to murder them, risking arrest in the process.
** This is a likely scenero however depending on how baddly she was beaten (throwing stones, etc) it's entirely possible she was just hurt very badly but not raped. It's possible you'd be dramatized too if you were beaten to an inch of your life just for some accidental magic.
** I thought she sustained physical brain damage.
** While I'm pretty certain that some kind of sexual harassment was involved, I doubt that it was more than inapproriate touching. I think that it was mostly physical violence and psychological torment.
** I think that she was gang-raped by the Muggle boys, not only because of the horribly traumatic repercussions of being raped, but because of something else I've noticed throughout the series. There are a lot of descriptions of child abuse in the books by parents or guardians or other authorities. Harry is verbally and emotionally abused by his aunt and uncle, who sit by while Dudley physically harms him. Neville is dropped out of a window by his grandfather, who is also later mercilessly verbally abused by Snape. Snape, in turn, is neglected as a child and constantly witnesses his parents fighting, which upsets and terrifies him. The students at Hogwarts are tortured and beaten by the Carrows. All the forms of child abuse save one are there--physical abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, and verbal abuse (all of which are described, rather than just mentioned in passing). The only form of child abuse that is never mentioned is sexual abuse. The fact that we are never told any details of the form this attack on Ariana took leads me to believe that she was raped as well as being beaten. Rowling does not shy away from descriptions of abuse that many of the children in the books are forced to endure, and I think that if Ariana had just been horribly beaten by the Muggles, she would have said so, since (as stated previously) there are a lot of descriptions of physical torment. But the nature of her attack remains ambiguous. So I think that yes, they gang-raped her.
** I can't imagine that she was raped. Remember, the boys were scared of her and thought she was trying to kill them. They simply saw her doing things that weren't possible and attacked her. I could easily see a six year old being traumitized from serious beating, not to mention the blows to the head probably caused brain damage. Besides, if I thought something wanted to kill me, I probably would look for "places" to stick my most sensitive organ.
* Voldemort trusting Snape. I mean, presumably, Voldemort uses Legilimency on all his Death Eaters to hear the truth. Sure, we know that Snape is a very accomplished Occlumens, but do you think Voldemort would really just shrug after being blocked by Snapes Occlumency? I imagine that he would be furious that Snape was hiding something (and I believe Dumbledore said that false memories are easy to notice and it's also obvious when someone is using Occlumency, so that's not an argument). So why didn't Voldemort FORCE Snape into letting down his guard?
** Well, Narcissa did lied to him that Harry was dead didn't she? So either V was more scary looks and crazy talks then actual craft or he only used telepathy on those he already suspected. Apparently, Snape was very good in NOT raising such suspisions.
** The official excuse is that Dumbledore is ''also'' a Legilimens.
** Snape could have well fooled Voldemort by focusing on all of his negative emotions whenever he was scanned, his hate for Harry, his resentment of Dumbledore... with Snapes skill with Occlumency he could have fooled Voldemort into thinking that was all there is.
** Remember that he is a Triple Agent, with both Dumbledore and Voldemort believing he's on their side; he could very easily have excused every action he took that Voldemort could see. Sitting in on Order meetings? He's supposed to do that. Spying on Malfoy for Dumbledore? Of course D would ask, and Snape would have to do it. The ring horcrux? It led to Dumbledore's death. By simple virtue of being a member of the Order for Voldemort, Snape is inherently justified in everything he does as a member of the Order. The only danger that poses to V is where Snape's true loyalties lie, and he proved those well and fine when he killed Dumbledore.
*** I don't want to spoil Book 7 for you, but when you get to the chapter "The Prince's Tale" you'll find out why Snape really killed Dumbledore. It was because [[spoiler:Dumbledore asked him to. Snape was a good guy after all.]]
* If Voldemort had supposedly invested so much time and effort in protecting his Horcruxes, why didn't he install a magical alarm system that activates every time anyone enters the hiding place? Having something that says, "Hey moron, someone's in your top secret hidey-place, get over here and kill someone" would be really useful. He believed that he could feel if the Horcruxes were destroyed, sure, but what about stolen? He doesn't want that to happen either.
** He doesn't even think anyone could ever know, much less actually find them, much less steal them, much less destroy them. He's proud. He thinks he's invincible. Mention a burgular alarm to him, and he'll laugh in your face. And, then probably kill you.
*** But he does bother to put traps around the locket Horcrux; he'd have no need to place traps if he thought it'd never be found. He might have thought that no one would ever get past the traps, but then why not put alarms on the non-trapped Horcruxes?
* How does Snape get away with all those things? Killing Dumbledore? On his orders. Torturing kids? Better than the Carrows. MURDERING THE MUGGLE STUDIES TEACHER? What could justify that? Granted, he was in the presense of Voldemort, but can we really forgive him for killing her as she begged for her life?
** You also have to factor in RedemptionEqualsDeath. He probably wouldn't have been forgiven as easily, by Harry especially, if he hadn't died being a spy in addition to giving Harry vital help and aid to finally defeat Voldemort.
** The teacher was killed by Voldemort, not Snape.
** And if Snape had killed her, you know that Voldemort/Some death eater would have anyway if he hadn't..
*** Indeed. Even on the hypothetical "Snape killed her" that didn't actually occur, IfYoureSoEvilEatThisKitten is a test that double agents and undercover operatives in general sometimes have to deal with. Fact is, even though he didn't kill the Muggle Studies teacher, Snape probably has had to do plenty of horrible things as an undercover Death Eater that we never saw because we're in Harry's perspective. That's a price you have to pay to keep your cover intact when dealing with the worst that humanity has to offer.
* Bill is the Secret Keeper for Shell Cottage, i.e. you can be the secret keeper for a Fidelus Charm protecting you and your location. So why wasn't James or Lily the Secret Keeper for their house in Godric's Hollow? Why did they rely on someone else?
** That...is a good question.
*** It was the one that bugged readers since they first learned of the Fidelus Charm. The best way to hide a secret would be to have the secret keeper be under protection of the same secret. Bill's case means that the theory that the secret keeper couldn't be someone protected by the secret was debunked. We can assume it was plot induced stupidity or Bill is a special case. It's possible since he's a curse breaker he (or someone else) discovered something new about the Fidelus Charm since the Potter's case (it has been about 15 years).
**** If nothing else, the Potters' deaths would provide the impetus to keep researching the Fidelius Charm. The book shows that even common magic can be improved upon, Snape was re-writing his potions textbook in his spare time.
*** Dumbledore was the Secret Keeper for 12 Grimmauld Place. Bill is the Secret Keeper for Shell Cottage. Peter is described as the Secret Keeper for ''the Potters.'' As in, the people, presumably no matter where they were. Which I imagine is safer, provided you have someone you can trust, but enchanting a person rather than a place probably complicates things. For one thing, Bill could just leave Shell Cottage and say, "Hey, there's Shell Cottage, it's so rad." But if James was protecting the location of himself, then going up to a stranger and going, "Hey, I'm here!" wouldn't do much, because the Fidelius Charm would protect him from being seen in the first place.
**** So then why didn't James become Secret Keeper for Lily and Harry and Lily for James? I get that the charm is difficult to produce but we're talking lives here.
**** I think the point was that you can't be the secret keeper for yourself, possibly as a rule of how the spell works, or else just because then you'd be permanently hidden and could never reveal yourself to anyone again. You'd completely drop off the radar and basically cease to exist as far as everyone else knew! In other words, the target of the spell matters. If it's a place being protected, anyone can keep the secret, but if it's a person, the people being protected cannot be the keeper.
**** The ideal solution would have been to have one of the Potters be the Secret Keeper for the Longbottoms and one of the Longbottoms be the Secret Keeper for the Potters. Or they could have just used Dumbledore... canonically, [[IdiotPlot he volunteered for the job and James & Lily turned him down]].
** New Bug: why was Ron able to tell Dobby about Shell Cottage if Bill's the secret keeper? More importantly, in such a way that Harry can understand him well enough for it to be spelled out in the book?
*** The Fidelius Charm wasn't placed on Shell Cottage until ''after'' the escape from Malfoy Manor, and as a direct result of same. The Charm wasn't necessary until it was known to the Death Eaters that Ron was aiding Harry and not sick at home.
*** Above theory doesn't hold. Consider this exchange:
-->'''Harry''': "How are they protected?"
-->'''Bill''': "Fidelius Charm. Dad's Secret-Keeper. And we've done it on this cottage too; I'm Secret-Keeper here. None of us can go to work, but that's hardly the most important thing now. Once Ollivander and Griphook are well enough, we'll move them to Muriel's too. There isn't much room here, but she's got plenty. [...]"
(Page 482, American Scholastic hardcover release.) Bill explicitly talks about the Fidelius Charm ''having been peformed previously on the cottage''. The way he speaks implies that it wasn't done in reaction to the little scene at Malfoy Manor, but that it's been there for a while to keep everyone protected (at the very minimum, since the moment Ginny got back home for her Easter holidays). Not to mention, it adds yet another hole to the whole explanation of the innards of the Fidelius Charm: If Arthur Weasley was the Secret-Keeper of Muriel Weasley's house, how can Bill speak so openly of the place? According to Snape in HBP, someone who's not a Secret-Keeper cannot speak the name of a place that's been Fideliused.
* Why didn't the Taboo have an effect at Grimmauld Place? I mean, it was obviously working before that because it caught them on Tottenham Court Road, and they said Voldemort many times while in Grimmauld Place. Were the protective charms just too powerful at the place to be broken then? And then that makes you ask, what were those remarkably powerful spells and how come Hermione couldn't use them on the tent?
** Because the spell is the Fidelus Charm, and maybe Hermione doesn't know how to use it? Grimmauld Place had Secret Keepers; the Death Eaters knew someone was in there but they couldn't get in.
*** That's right, I forgot that the Fidelius Charm was on the house.
** The Potters would need to leave the house at some point, at which point they would be set upon by Voldemort himself looking for Harry. By giving someone on the outside the secret, he can bring them food and such. Bill isn't directly in Voldemort's sights the way James or Lily would have been, so he can still leave the house for supplies or whatever(IIRC he keeps his job during DH).
*** So why not have Dumbledore be the secret keeper? One of your best friend from school isn't exactly an "under the radar" choice, so why not go with the big gun that no Death Eater (probably even Voldemort himself) would risk facing?
**** That was probably Dumbledore's reasoning as well, since he is specifically mentioned to have offered being the Potters' Secret-Keeper. However, they turned him down; maybe they thought he had enough on his plate already and would be better using his strength at protecting those who ''didn't'' have good friends willing to die for them. The "deception" thing is specifically mentioned to be Sirius's idea; he wanted the Death Eaters to come after ''him'' (and probably had enough self-confidence to assume he could handle them), which would mean that Peter would have enough time to get into hiding himself if the ruse was discovered. It wasn't really such a bad idea; the main reason why it didn't work was because Sirius put his trust in the exact wrong person; he knew there was a traitor in their midst, but never dreamt that this traitor was ''Peter.''
* The family that Voldemort slaughtered when looking for Gregorovitch. The woman opens the door and sees him, and then begs him not to kill anyone and is obviously trying to protect her family from him. Why didn't that put a protection on the rest of her family? Was it just because she didn't specifically say "Kill me instead of them" or is Lily's love just so much better than everyone else's?
** Wouldn't that only work if Voldemort blatantly gave her the choice to step aside? He was telling Lily to get out of the way at first.
*** This. It only counts as self-sacrifice if you weren't already going to die anyway.
**** I really don't think ThePowerOfLove would be that picky... Besides, she shielded her children from the Killing Curse with her own body. She clearly made the choice of self-sacrifice, even if it wasn't offered.
*** The mother was not a Gryffindor, therefore she was not super special.
** Consider this: we don't know if they were all slaughtered! Harry saw the green flash and then the link broke. So pehaps it did work, so V would have to suffice with Obliviating the kids or [[FridgeHorror torturing them into insanity]].
* Okay, so the Elder Wand can't kill its master, but what would've happened if Harry hadn't used Expelliarmus on Voldemort? Nothing?
** Possibly, the same thing that happened in the forest - they both get knocked out for a few seconds. Then Neville runs up with the sword and stabs Voldy in the forehead, or some such.
** This is my theory. When the first AK was cast by Voldemort in the forest, it hit the horcrux which was in Harry and sends him to place between the world and the afterlife. Harry couldn't go further because of his mom's protection, Harry couldn't die while Voldemort was alive. Because Harry is the master of the Elder Wand, it rebounces on Voldemort but the curse was only powerful enough to send them to this place. When AK is cast again by Voldemort, it totally rebounces and kills Voldemort. Harry using Expelliarmus and catching the wand is more like RuleOfCool.
* Kreacher's HeelFaceTurn. In Book 5, Hermione was as nice as possible to Kreacher every chance she got. He essentially spit in her face and called her a mudblood. Harry does one nice thing for him in Book 7 by giving him the locket, and suddenly he couldn't be nicer to everyone, including the girl he'd been calling a mudblood just a few paragraphs before.
** House Elves have a different sense of gratitude than humans. Dobby literally cried when Harry asked him to sit down, as he had never been treated as an equal before.
** Kreacher considered Hermione subhuman (and she ''was'' being a bit condescending in her niceness), whereas Harry was, though Anti-Voldemort, a pro-Regulus wizard with two magical parents who was giving him something specifically to do with Regulus. I still think it was overdone, but the being nicer to Hermione was because he started obeying Harry (his owner, or possibly his former owner to whom he owes a debt by way of Regulus depending on whether a locket counts as clothing or not) in spirit instead of just in letter.
* Similar to the one above, in the climactic battle, Kreacher calls Harry Potter the "protector of house elves" (or something to that effect). As crowningly awesome and heartwarming the scene is, it just seems a little unfair if you consider that Harry had only been nice to two individual elves (Dobby and Kreacher, and the latter mostly because it served his own purpose), whereas Hermione organized (or at least tried to organize) SPEW, a whole movement dedicated to the betterment of house elves' work conditions worldwide. Heck, even the catalyst for her kissing Ron for the first time was when he said they should lead the elves of Hogwarts to safety before the battle. And yet Harry is the great savior.
** Well, first off Kreacher still wasn't too happy about Hermione, because she wasn't a pure blood. Also, he didn't know about SPEW, and he probably meant Harry Potter and company. I'm pretty sure that Harry would also be nice to other house elves given the chance, and he was nice to Winky. To top it off, really, it's a climatic battle. I'm sure he was just trying to remind the other elves of what they were fighting for and to "Go kick some Death Eater butts."
** Plus, while having her heart in the right place, Hermoine was really condescending when it came to her "elf liberation" ideals. Most of the elves are insulted by Hermoine's pro-liberation beliefs and attempts at freeing them. In the fourth book she's thrown out of the kitchen after urging them to seek freedom and in the fifth, after she leaves hats around the common room to try and free them, the elves are so insulted they actually refuse to clean it. Hermoine certainly wouldn't be the best person to use when rallying house-elves.
** Kreacher's thing was about Harry treating him as an equal. Even if Hermione had treated Kreacher as an equal (without being condescending), due to his view on muggle-borns it wouldn't have meant much. To him, "equal with muggle-born" is still about the same as "sub-human".
* Harry and co. infiltrating the ministry. Ok, am I the only one who sees a problem with this? They are on the run, the whole of Britain is on the lookout for Harry, Ron and Hermione aren't even supposed to be with him (thanks to spattergroit and Australia), and yet, they decide the best way to get the locket from Umbridge is to infiltrate the Ministry, the base of Voldemort's operations? (other than Malfoy Manor, of course, but this is where he's strongest anyway). Why, oh why, couldn't they invest their time tracking down where Umbridge LIVES, and just attack her at her house? This would be soooooo much simpler, and (comparatively) safer. (unless Umbridge actually lives at the Ministry, which wouldn't surprise me...)
** But how would they have tracked her if she uses floo powder to travel between home and the ministry?
*** This is a good point assuming Umbridge uses floo or apparates between her house and the ministry there's no way they can locate her home without either asking someone or infiltrating the ministry to find out. Either way compromises what they're after and so they just infiltrate the ministry to get the locket from her and also help rescue the muggleborns in the process. Plus assuming they did somehow find where she lived her home would no doubt have wards they'd need to break to get inside.
* Bellatrix questioning Hermione about the sword. The obligatory insanity excuse aside this was one of those rare and bizarre occasions when actually extracting the information prioritizes over the pleasure of torturing the hell out of the questionee. So, why didn't Bellatrix use Legilimency on her? The girl was completely untrained in Occlumency, so it should've likely worked, and THEN Bella could've safely tortured her to her black heart's content. Even if she went off so far off her rocker she didn't even consider this option, why didn't Narcissa who wasn't insane? On the same matter, why didn't they try to scan Harry to find out that it was really him under the disguise?
** Now that I think of it, why didn't the Trio receive any training in Occlumency? Harry's failure in book 5 attributed mostly to the general stress of Umbridge's reign, his tutor sucking in his trade and Harry actively willing to peek into Voldy's mind. None of those factors were in place in book 6 and Harry'd just received a cruel lesson about the importance of mind-protection. Moreover, in book 7 Dumbledore repeatedly expressed worries that some of the bad guys could read Harry's mind and thus spell doom for the whole enterprise, but he took no steps to actually help them defend from this danger.
*** Training in Occulmency requires 3 essential elements: 1) a competent teacher, in '''Hogwarts??''' 2) time, DD needed to spend 12 months tellin Harry '''absolutely nothing at all''', there was no time remaining to tell Harry useul stuff; 3) the desire to learn, Harry neede the Dark Lord Broadcasting Network.
** But is Bellatrix trained in Legilimency?
*** She trained Draco in Occlumency well enough to repel Snape's mind-probing. She'd have to be competent herself.
**** It might not be necessary to be good at Legilimency to teach Occlumency. However in this situation let's suppose she is trained in Legilimency. She doesn't know what training Dumbledore has given Potter or any of his friends outside of what Snape told her who she's known to not trust. If she makes an attempt she might get thrown out of the mind allowing them to take advantage of her distraction. She's weighing her options and decides not to do it until she gets conformation that it is them and then weighs whether it'd be wise to get back up or just call Voldemort. Regardless she's in a highly stressed situation and it's very easy for her to make a mistake.
**** First, you obviously HAVE to be a skilled attacker if you want to teach somebody to be a good defender. Next, uhm, what advantage could Hermione possibly take while being outnumbered, disarmed and tied up? As for stress, that's what the Malfoys were there for - they were not aware of the stress reason, and to them the whole questioning was just a quirk and an annoying hindrance to summoning V and restoring his grace. So it'd be only natural for them to inquire [[WhyDontYouJustShootHim Why Bellatrix doesn't simply scan her]].
***** Have you never panicked?
***** Again, Malfoys had no reasons to panic.
***** Remember, Hermione ''was'' already spilling her guts in that interrogation; Bellatrix didn't ''believe'' her. She was the one who kept insisting that the Trio couldn't possibly have 'found the sword out in the woods, you must have been inside my vault!'. Presumably if she was using Legilimency on Hermione she wrote off what she saw as 'false' images and went 'The girl must be an Occlumens; we'll have to rip out of her the old-fashioned way then!'
[[/folder]]
------
[[folder: Unsorted Examples pt5]]
* What ''was'' that baby in Kings Cross Station?
** V's soul.
*** What's left of it, at any rate.
* This may have been discussed before (but couldn't find it), but when we finally see how Harry's parents died, we read that James left his wand on the sofa before Voldemort came in. Granted they were probably (falsely) secured with the knowledge that Voldemort didn't know where they were, you'd think they'd still keep their wands with them at all times as a precaution. I mean, what if either of them wanted to lounge around on the front porch?
** The closest we've come in previous discussions was that James had just got done playing with Harry and they were going to put him to bed then come back down. They were reasonably relaxed for that brief period of time and that cost them. It's never said exactly how long they'd been in hiding up to this point and there might have been many more moments like it. If they'd wanted to go outside of the house they'd have made sure they had their wands, yes, but it was late at night and they were getting ready for bed so there wasn't much need.
*** I see. But I'd love to see the previous discussion. Where can I find it?
**** Sadly it was deleted mysteriously when the original Harry Potter It Just Bugs me page lost the full page of data. We still don't know how it happened and we lost a lot of repeted questions.
* In Deathly Hallows, Moody explained to Harry that his mother's protection would wear off when he turned seventeen. When Harry died, he could "come back" because his mother's protection was alive in Voldemort. But, wouldn't it wear off because he was already seventeen? Or did Voldemort taking Harry's blood extend it?
** This isn't entirely correct. There are mutiple theories about why Harry came back and some of them can overlap. The more common is that Voldemort mistakenly created something similar to a Horcrux for Harry when he took his blood which allowed him to come back after the Elder Wand destroyed Voldemort's Horcus in Harry. It doesn't have to be Lily's protection that brought him back, but that could be a factor of the lingering effects.
** The way I read it was, the protection that ended when Harry came of age was the spell Dumbledore set over the house. Dumbledore had taken Lily's charm and manipulated it into a shield on #4 Privet Drive that would hold while Harry called the house home, until he turned 17. Lily's charm itself lived on in Harry's blood even after Dumbledore's shield was broken.
** Unfortunately, the text contradicts; Moody specifically calls the protection on the house Lily's spell in the chapter where it ends, and Dumbledore specifically says that the fragment of Lily's spell in Voldemort's blood only lives on as long as the rest of the spell does, and vice versa.
*** It's perfectly possible for Lily to have more than one spell. Even if it was the same spell, the Moody's and Dumbledore's contexts are very different. It may be, for example, that part of the spell protected the Dursleys' house as long as Harry was a child and called it home, but just because neither of those conditions are met doesn't nullify other parts of the spell.
* This is a MissedMomentOfAwesome that's been bugging me for a while. For those who have read ''TheChroniclesOfPrydain'', you'll recall that in the first book the hero helped save the life of a gwythaint (a bird/dragon creature), something that paid off big-time in the final book where [[spoiler:it returns to save his life]]. I was hoping that the same sort of thing would happen here. Way back in ''HarryPotterAndThePhilosophersStone'', Harry and Hermione save Norbert when they have it shipped off to Charlie Weasley. Charlie Weasley works with dragons. Bill Weasley works in Gringotts. So why couldn't Norbert have been the dragon that the PowerTrio use to escape Gringotts in this final book? He ([[YourTomcatIsPregnant or she]]) could have easily ended up there thanks to the connection between the brothers, and it would have been nice to bring that character "full-circle" in repaying his debt to Harry (granted, dragons don't seem to be hugely intelligent, but Rowling has handwaved bigger things than that). It was perfectly set-up...and it didn't happen.
** That's just it. JK Rowling may have read that series and didn't want to rip it by having Norbert flying in. That and she probably didn't want to have Norbert change into a DeusExMachina. Knowing Charlie Weasly, he may have taken Norbert to his natural habitat, there's no way he (Norbert) would know of the PowerTrio's actions.
*** Also, the dragon in Gringotts bank spends all its life underground getting hot swords across the face. It would have been a shame for Norbert to have ended up there not to mention that fact that Charlie most likely wouldn't knowingly allow such a fate to befall one of his rescued dragons.
** Speaking of Missed Moments Of Awesome, we never really got to see how much of a BadAss Moody truly was. When Voldemort joined the chase over Little Winghing (sp?), it would've been cool to see him attempt to pull a YouShallNotPass, instead of [[DroppedABridgeOnHim simply getting shot out of the air]].
*** I saw a nice one-shot fanfic that [[RetCon explaned this very realisticlly.]] [[http://www.fanfiction.net/s/6410454/2/Bits_and_Pieces_a_collection_of_sorts You can read it here.]] To summarize Moody didn't die when he got hit by the killing curse becasue it hit him in his magic eye. He then procedes to wreck Death Eaters and fake his death.
* Was I the only one that wanted more explanation of why it had to be Harry to go on the Voldemort destruction quest? Sure there was the prophecy, but the whole them of the books until that point was that it's "choices that matter". Why couldn't Dumbledore say, "[[ScrewDestiny Hell no,]] I am not putting the fate of the world in the hands of a 17-year-old boy who isn't terribly talented in magic who has an involuntary psychic connection with the BigBad" and divided the task among members of the Order? I realize that couldn't happen for literary reasons, since this has always been a Harry-centered story, but it would have been nice to see a more compelling reason for why it had to be Harry than BecauseDestinySaysSo.
** It's possible Dumbledore thought he could do this in the first place but then once he was nearly killed by destroying one Horcrux changed his mind and came to the conclusion that this is something Harry has to do for himself. Regardless he did put forth the idea that destroying them is easier without alerting Voldemort. Thus it's better to have a smaller group work on finding them. Plus in his mind having the Order handle it can lead to nastier instances either with Voldemort finding out about it or them failiing worse than he did.
** When doing the single most sensitive part of taking down Voldemort, it's best to keep it to as few people as possible. Also, most of the Order are teachers, whose absense would be very noticeable. The only ones who weren't still teachers were Lupin, Moody, and Nymphadora. Lupin turns into a monster once a month, and occasionally forget his potion, so that makes him an instant hazard right off the bat.
*** Also, [[EmbarrassingFirstName Tonks]] was still considered a kid by some or most of the members, and Moody was... definitely [[IfYouKnowWhatIMean the sharpest bulb in the box]].
*** Also, thanks to Voldie's actions, it would be impossible to kill him while [[spoiler: Harry is still alive]]. Voldemort, or potentially someone else I guess, had to [[spoiler: kill the part of Voldemort's soul that is in Harry]] before Voldemort could be killed by anyone.
**** Original poster explaining my position. My thought was that Dumbledore could have told the people something along the lines of "Destroy this one, and then tell either me or my portrait. And yes, this is the only one. Yes I'm sure." Then, if one did get captured and forced to tell what they knew, one of two things would happen - everything would go to hell or Voldemort would be such an arrogant idiot he would actually be more secure, convinced Dumbledore only knew about one Horcrux. There is still the possibility of everything going to hell, but at least there is a possibility that things could still work out okay - whereas if Harry gets caught and Voldemort decides to withstand the pain and go into his mind, you know for sure everything is going to hell. I know it couldn't have worked that way for literary reasons, but still.
***** This leads to the problem of at the point when he can assign tasks he only knows about the cup and the locket and for all he knew the cup could be in the cave. He's certain Nagani is one but you can't have someone go after that until Harry's ready and if necessary I'd think he'd have Snape set for that if needed. He could assign people to the one not in the cave but he'd have very little information to give them to help other than sending Order members on chasing shadows. His problems all stem from the lack of information he has and the hope that Harry can be informed of all of this before his final confrontation.
****** Besideswhich, a war is fought on multiple fronts. Chasing after the Horcruxes will certainly be dangerous, but if they're all hidden like the one in the cave, it's an objective that's easy for the enemy to miss that you're pursuing. All the key Order members are needed to fight on the front lines. Hold the enemy's attention with your army while a handful of kids sneak around undoing the Big Bad's immortality. Dumbledore isn't the only [[LordOfTheRings wizard]] who's opted that plan before.
****** Moreover, to my impression Dumbledore beleived that the less people knew about Horcruxes as such the better. You know, just so that nobody gets any ideas.
* This hasn't been mentioned above (or otherwise I missed it), and it, well, just bugs me: We know the Elder Wand is passed if it's taken from its owner against his will, right? However, the reason everyone wants the Elder Wand so badly is because if you're the true owner and using it in battle, you're invincible right? Well, then there's one point I can't understand - how was Dumbledore able to get the wand from Grindelwald in 1945? Obviously, they duelled, and Dumbledore won - against someone invincible. How's that possible? And, if we assume Grindelwald lost on purpose (for whatever reason), the wand wouldn't have been taken against his will, so Dumbledore hadn't been the true owner either. Therefore - how did Dumbledore ever become the true master of the Elder Wand?
** Either Dumbledore somehow tricked Grindelwald and won through no fault of the wand, or, more likely, the reputation of the wand is inflated and it's not actually unbeatable just far superior in power than any other wand.
*** This is it exactly. The wand's reputation for invincibility is inflated. In fact it's not invincible at all - the one consistent thing about its entire history is that ''every one of its owners has been defeated,'' most often specifically ''because they owned the wand''.
** If Grindelwald lost on purpose, then he effectively surrenders the wand's allegiance to Dumbledore - who planned to do the same thing to give the allegiance of the Elder Wand to Snape.
*** No, Dumbledore planned to die willingly at Snape's hand and thus die with the wand's allegiance and thus destroy much of its power as no one could properly use it anymore.
* So, Yaxley gets to break through the Fidelius Charm... and then he can enter... and then face two extraordinarily(Sp?) strong wizards, and another very, very good one. What's the problem? It isn't like he could tell the secret to anyone else.
** After Dumbledore's death anyone who is given the secret becomes a secret keeper. So once Hermione gives Yaxley the secret via apparition, he can then just tell all the other Death Eaters and they will all be able to get in.
*** No, I am pretty sure only the people who were told by Dumbledore originally become secrete keepers upon his death. Yaxley shouldn't be able to tell anyone the information, even if he knows it.
** I always just assumed the Trio misinterpreted the thing about the Fidelius charm breaking
** There's also the fact that Yaxley's Voldemort's top man in the Ministry, and Voldie doesn't tolerate weaklings in his inner circle (Wormtail being little more than a personal servant). Odds are he could do some pretty serious damage on his own before the Trio and Kreacher managed to subdue him, and if he actually killed one of them it would just fray the charm further.
** Hmm... that makes sense... I mean, risking one of the trio's lives? Yeah, thanks a lot.
** Hermione mentioned that Yaxley was momentarily disoriented upon arriving at Grimauld Place, enabling the trio to disapparate again, but... Couldn't they have used that opportunity to at least STUN Yaxley? And the specifics of the Fidelius Charm don't even matter if they were willing to kill him, which would mean they could have remained at Grimmauld Place instead of risk their health/lives out in random forests... But it seems [[StupidGood the life of an evil Death Eater was considered more important by Hermione than she and her friends own lives]].
** My plan for this situation would have been: Arrive at Grimmauld Place. Stun Yaxley. Apparate with him to the forest. Apparate back to Grimmauld Place, leaving: Ron NOT splinched and Yaxley Stunned in some random forest and unable to reveal Grimmauld Place's location to the other Death Eaters when he gets back. Not that difficult. I realise people don't think well under pressure and when they only have a couple of seconds to make a decision, but still...
Wouldn't Stupefy be just about the first spell to come to mind in that situation anyway?
* Harry makes a point of saying that the Elder Wand's power will die if Harry dies a natural death. Uh... Harry? You do realise you announced the fact you're the master of the wand ''in front of a room full of hundreds of people''? I'm willing to accept that nobody left in the Great Hall was evil enough to steal the wand, but presumably the fight would be covered in great detail in the ''Daily Prophet'', and surely ''someone'' out there will read the article and say to themself, "Wow, the Elder Wand! I could sure use that!"
** It's been discussed before (but was deleted) but suffice to say that although an oversight on his part it can easily be covered up by publicly claiming to return it to Dumbledore's grave, but instead he can put a touch-activated portkey wand there to have the aurors deal with anyone stupid enough to try and steal it.
** Which would completely pointless, since in order to become the master you have to beat Harry, not steal the wand itself. Which Harry has told everyone by explaining why he is the master. The explanation might be that any bad guy who isn't dead or in prison by that point is probably thinking "That guy beat frickin' Voldemort, I'm not gonna mess with him".
*** Except that there is no requirement to defeat the wielder in a ''fair'' fight; you can entirely murder him in his sleep and then loot the wand from his corpse. That is straight from the original legend about the creation of the Deathly Hallows. The one every wizarding child knows.
*** Made worse by the fact that Harry decides to get a job as an AUROR. Okay, you intend to go through the rest of your life without being ''defeated'' in battle a single time, ever, as a policeman? Even without people actively hunting him down to become the master of the Elder Wand, he's throwing himself into situations where the wand's loyalty could jump on a daily basis.
* After the big "Snape Loved(s) Lily" reveal, I couldn't help but wonder why Sirius and Lupin never mentioned it to Harry (or at the very least, that they were once good friends). One could say that they (especially Sirius) hated Snape and didn't spend time with him, but surely they would have noticed Lily hanging out with Snape a lot, considering their perpetual torment of him and James chasing after her. One could also say that they didn't think it was important to tell Harry, but when Harry is protesting Dumbledore's trust of Snape to Lupin (even mentioning Snape calling Lily "mudblood"), you'd think Lupin mentioning this fact may have at least given Harry something to think about. I just find it hard to believe that they were too obtuse to not notice or not care.
** This troper agrees. Snape and Lily were best friends at Hogwarts for five years! It's hard to believe that nobody thought to mention this to Harry. I'll accept that Dumbledore might have kept it a secret as part of Snape's cover. But considering how frequently Harry rants about Snape, it's surprising that another character didn't just say, "You know, Snape was best friends with your mother for a time." McGonagall, Slughorn, and especially Sirius and Lupin must have known. I guess it's plausible that it just never came up. After all, Sirius and Lupin usually reveal backstory details only when directly asked by Harry.
** It's probably a sore subject for them that their rival was friends with James's wife before them. I also wouldn't doubt they still haven't got over her death or more likely that it might be too low even for Sirius to torment Snape with Lily. After all it's not really a good idea to bring up the dead in an argument as it's usually a mood killer or a call to arms. Not telling Harry about it might be due to the fact that they never really got around to telling him much, especially about how much of a jerk his father was when he was in school. In both cases it probably didn't seem important enough for them to tell Harry with the war going on.
** Or it's possible that the only other person who ever knew ''for sure'' that Snape had been in love with Lily was Dumbledore. I think Sirius and Lupin might have suspected it, but it would have been a really {{jerkass}} move, right after Harry saw the memory of James tormenting Snape, to say "Well, your dad thought Snape was in love with your mum..." Whether or not they'd have meant it to come off as a justification, that's how Harry would have viewed it, and it would have made him feel even angrier at the Marauders, and probably ''especially'' towards Sirius (for egging James on) and Lupin (for not even trying to stop them).
* While I really liked the seventh book over all, it bugs me to this day that I can't think of any justification for Voldemort not just AK-ing Snape [[DefaultAnswer other than the fact that Snape had to stay alive long enough to give Harry his memories]]. I simply don't buy Voldemort not wanting to get his hands dirty; he's obviously shown he doesn't care about that sort of thing, and if his entire reason for killing Snape was to master the Elder wand, why risk the chance that it wouldn't work because he didn't kill Snape directly?
** Perhaps he saw it as an indignity to keep using a wand he hadn't mastered and had decided to not use the Elder Wand again until he had officially won it.
** He may also have been afraid of precisely what happened when he wielded the Elder Wand against Harry later; that the wand would deny his attempt to kill its master using it, and may in fact backlash the effect on him.
*** For that matter, why did he feel the need to kill Snape at all instead of just disarming him suddenly? Did he not understand how allegiance transferred or something?
*** I don't think Voldemort knew that, or if he did he figured that a wand known as the 'Deathstick' might have different rules. Or it could be a 'just to make sure' thing. As for why he didn't use the Killing Curse, it could be that you have to really mean it and, even if it wasn't out of the goodness of his heart (ha!), he thought Snape could still be useful, and he probably felt that it was regrettable but necessary. So maybe he thought the Killing Curse wouldn't work?
[[/folder]]
------
[[folder: Unsorted Examples pt6]]
* I don't think this has come up before, so I have to wonder why ''all the other'' magical communities in ''all the other countries of the world'' didn't ''do'' something about what was happening in Britain, or try to help or ''anything''. Yes, I know Voldemort was staying under cover until his enemies in England were crushed and the Ministry of Magic certainly didn't come out and say 'Yeah, we're in the Dark Lord's pocket now'. So what? Are you telling me that ''no one'' outside the country guessed at what was really happening? And it's not as if there was no chance of them knowing what was going on; Voldemort having returned was public knowledge long before this point and the behaviour of the Ministry and its sudden turn against Harry twice in as many years would be rather suspicious at the least. I just can't believe that nobody managed to get out of England before the restrictions really set in, or told the other magical governments the truth about registration and persecution and the like, perhaps even Muggle Borns being sent to Azkaban or just being outright Kissed. And even if the different communities have a 'non-interference' policy or a desire to keep the wizarding world secret, which makes sense and which couldn't very well happen if they turned England into a battle field, if they even guessed that Voldemort was taking over they knew that he probably wouldn't stop there and would spread his influence to the rest of the world, never mind the fact that lots of innocent people were being unjustly imprisoned or killed. And please, let's not forget that this is the ''second'' time this sort of thing has happened: no one seemed inclined to aid the Order of the Phoenix in the First Wizarding War either, even though that was a smaller affair. I know that in the Harry Potter world everything is England, but I would have liked to at least be given a reason for why the rest of the world doesn't seem to give a damn.
** Foreign powers watching semi-apathetically as a single nation is locked in a desperate clash with a ruthless force led by a megalomaniac dictator bent on world domination? Now why does this sound so familiar?
*** True, this is a very well documented phenomenon in international politics. Very plausible that no one would have come to Britain's aid (in the Wizarding world, which does not necessarily remember 'appeasement' and its failure) until Voldemort began to look for extra lebensraum for him and his pure blood sycophants.
** I'd always assumed that the other countries couldn't be sure that something really was wrong. They'd heard of crazy things happening in Britain in the past few years and assumed it wasn't their problem. I'm sure some people knew the problems that were going on but politics (in every country) are difficult to get anything going unless you have solid proof. Keep in mind that the really bad stuff (hunting down muggleborns) didn't start happening until the summer after Harry's 6th year. Most countries if they even had the wizards for a peacekeeping force wouldn't be able to send them unless it became public, otherwise it'd look just like an invasion force.
*** Exactly. Plus, remember, we're only seeing it through Harry's eyes, so we really don't know any more than he does. All he (and we) know is that England stands alone. He may not know that other countries like America, France, Germany, are sending their wizards over to fight Voldemort. I think Rowling left that for the readers to decide. I like to assume that there are a few wizards from outside countries helping them against Voldemort and his men.
* I think I've finally figured out why Lupin's meltdown at Grimmauld Place bothers me so much: Of course he wouldn't want to pass his lycanthropy on to an innocent child, but (1) why did he never sit Tonks down and say, "Tonks, baby, I love you and I know you want kids, but honey, ''I'm a fucking '''werewolf''','' so procreating might not be the best idea in this case."? She's an Auror; she should have been able to see where he was coming from; and (2) does Rowling ''really'' expect us to believe that the Wizarding World, which has spells and potions capable of curing almost every disease and injury under the sun, doesn't have some form of birth control? Think about it: What if a couple of fifth-years at Hogwarts have a little hanky-panky in the broom closet, and she ends up pregnant; is she just totally fucked (pun not intended, but whatever)? I can understand if Rowling is pro-life, but ''seriously''. Pregnancy isn't always a happy or welcome thing, especially if you're a teenager or you have an AIDS allegory that you don't want your child suffering from.
** Technically yes, but mentally? Remember that the Wizarding world is stuck somewhere in XVI-XVII century (parchement and quills, anybody) with some sporadic inputs of technology (most likely adapted from Muggles). I wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of them are ignorant about the subtleties of the process itself, let alone the possibilities of control. As was pointed out in the general discussion of the Potterverse, there are no Sex Ed classes in Hogwarts .
*** It's the 21st century, I'm sure wizards have figured out how procreation works. They're not stupid. The OP's right. If it was such a big deal, he should've said "Honey, Im a werewolf, perhaps we shouldn't have a child". If she still wanted one, they could just adopt. Maybe if Tom Riddle found a loving family and was adopted, he might not have grown into Voldemort (ok, he probably would have, but you never can tell).
**** It's 21st centure in Muggle world. It's 19th (at best) in the Wizarding world. Birth control achieved structure and widespread in the middle of the 20th.
***** That's assuming a lot. For one thing, social mores in the Wizarding world seem to be roughly on par with the Muggle world. No one really raises an eyebrow at the idea of women in power or with interracial dating (Cho and Harry, Cho and Cedric, Fred and Angelina, George and Angelina, Ginny and Dean). Bigotry exists in other forms, yes--against part humans, against non-humans, against Muggles and Muggle-borns--but no one's behavior is even remotely similar to nineteenth century society. Furthermore, prophylactics have entered and left widespread use repeatedly over the course of history. One herb in Ancient Rome was so effective a means of birth control that it was harvested into extinction. Given the presence of medicinal magic in widespread use (they've cured the common cold, for instance) it's likely that they have birth control. As I've suggested, it might just not work one hundred percent of the time, or could have been faulty, or whatever.
****** As for women in power, consider this; the Minister of Magic before Fudge was a woman (Millicent Bagnold). And under Fudge, the #2 and #3 slots in the Ministry were also women (Delores Umbridge and Amelia Bones).
** Hell, Muggles have birth control, but we don't always use it. Maybe it was a ButWeUsedACondom situation and the potion/charm/whatever isn't always effective. Maybe they just didn't use it one time in the heat of the moment. Maybe it was a potion that was improperly brewed, or a charm that was improperly cast. Maybe the condom slipped off.
** This could just be another indication of how unhealthy their relationship is. I mean, this is a relationship where one can look utterly miserable while the other is beaming. Tonks was very clear with what she wanted and how she felt in the sixth book, but Lupin still held that he knew what was best for her and treated her like a child, really. Then, in the same manner, he dissregards everything previously resolved to walk out on her and the bably. On the flip side, she doesn't take his concerns seriously at all if he could be as upset as he was with the consequences of their relationship while she pretented that everything was pink clouds and sunshine. My guess is that she wanted a baby (or unprotected sex on the wedding night, at least) bad enough to wave off all his concerns and he just gave up the fight at that moment, maybe thinking he could solve the situation later. I don't think that this is directly linked to the sexual freedom the that society, their communication was just that bad.
** I don't know, I think it's very believable that the Wizarding world (which is rather backwards in many issues such as racism or law, for that matter) might hold Views on contraception? And, as pointed out above, they don't seem to have sex ed. classes. Also there is forgetfulness, condoms breaking etc.
** Hey, it's also entirely possible that, post-Dumbledore's death, in the pure emotion of it all the two of them made angsty love in an abandoned room somewhere, and Tonk's hair "magically" turned back to pink. During sex, your brain just shuts off anyway. Lupin probably regretted his decision later when he considered the consequences of it all (again, as has been mentioned above, just like Muggles will do). On a side note on Wizard prejudices, I've been wondering why it is there isn't more diversity at Hogwarts. Yes, Hogwarts has a mix of different ethnicities, but if at least the films are any indication, the majority certainly leans toward caucasions, just like it does in Muggle England. The civil rights movement would not have had anything to do with the magical world, like at all. HOWEVER, one could easily point out that, as there is a large number of Halfbloods and Muggleborns mixed in with the purebloods, there'd be numerous cultural cross-overs.
* How can one tree in Romania - one tree that is ''not'' specified to be a magical tree - last for a ''thousand years''? With the diadem of Ravenclaw staying there forever, and never taken up by some - say - squirrel. Or magpie. We're not talking the Petrified Forest or the California Sequoiahs, just an ordinary little tree. No forest fires. No lightning or particularly harsh winds. Not even a spell to preserve the tree for that long is mentioned. How?
** Just because no magic was ''mentioned'' doesn't mean none was ''used''. Considering Voldemort took the diadem ''from'' the tree decades ago, whatever way it ''used'' to be protected isn't really relevant.
** [[TruthInTelevision Plenty of trees can last a thousand years or more]]. The oldest tree in existence has been around [[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080414-oldest-tree.html since the end of the last major Ice Age]] (for the record and according to the article, nearly ''10,000 years''), and according to Rowling [[http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=18 there are 2,000-year-old yew trees in Britain]].
* There is a spell which will notify the caster(s) if somebody says a particular word. It was used to great effect by the Death Eaters to find when somebody said "Voldemort", as only the good guys in the Order would be brave enough to say it. Why didn't the Ministry/Order do the same thing but with "Dark Lord" or even "My Lord"? Even if the Ministry is too incompetent/corrupted to think of it or act on it, it would give the Order a lot of valuable intelligence on who his followers are (that Snape may not know about or may not be sharing).
** First of all doing that to "Dark Lord" when you could be refering to the Dark Lord Grindelwald or heck ''any Dark Lord'' past or present in casual conversation is ridiculous. Second of all "My lord" can sometimes used by muggleborns as a sort of curse as in "oh my lord" so that's out too. Honestly the ministry isn't at fault for this as it's possible the Taboo Voldemort made is dark magic and would be frowned upon. You'd have to put it on something worse like say "Avada Kedavra" to get any real use out of it and even then it'd be iffy if you're teaching it to aurors.
*** And it's not just muggleborns that use the word 'lord' as an intensifier or curse. I noticed in a reread that at one point Draco Malfoy says 'Good Lord' before dropping some obnoxious insult.
* So, if Harry's cloak is the unbeatable artifact it's claimed to be, what's stopping the owner of the cloak from just waltzing up behind someone and nailing them with a killing curse? Invisibility isn't a defense, it's a weapon. If somebody had realized this, wouldn't it have made the climactic battle at the end decidedly less climactic, and by extension, bloody for the Hogwarts side?
** Harry only has one cloak. Plus, I'm sure you can just imagine the chaos if everyone stopped and went "Harry, quick! Gimme that coat!"
** The legend behind the cloak is inflated and Harry knows that. Moody's eye can see through the cloak as is evidenced in book 4. Who's to say that 'Homenum revelio' wouldn't reveal his location instantly for someone to take him out after he got one or two enemies down? Invisibility is a good tactic but that alone won't win the war. Besides at that time he was using it to hide himself rather than attack others.
* Why didn't Voldemort simply order all his minions to make an unbreakable vow, that they will always serve his cause and never betray him?
** There are a few theories I've heard about this. One theory says as long as it is active it constantly drains a portion of the unbreakable vow's subjects' magic (ie Snape and Mrs. Malfoy constantly had a set amount of magic that they couldn't access while the vow was in place). If Voldemort did that with everyone he'd have very little magic but loyal followers. Another theory is you can only have one unbreakable vow working at a time. Which would mean Voldemort would only use it if absolutely necessary. We don't know everything about the unbreakable vow so we can't just make blind jumps in logic otherwise we'd question every moment the unbreakable vow could have been used in the series.
** He expected that fear would keep the Death Eaters in line.
** Another idea: He wants to allow for failure. Maybe he wants to punish it with a grand speech, Crucio and AK to make a lasting impression (somebody peacefully kicking the bucket on a mission wouldn't be nearly so dramatic). Or maybe he understands that sometimes circumstances make fulfilling his orders impossible and doesn't want to needlessly lose loyal followers. Presumably, an unbreakable vow isn't intelligent and follows the contract to the letter all the time.
* It bugs me how Harry immediately rejects Lupin's help without even considering the possibility that they could use it. Sure, Lupin should be spending time with Tonks, but they could have made all sorts of stipulations. Lupin doesn't have to know what they're up to to teach them useful defensive spells and strategies. They might have even been get some "methods of magical destruction" without him getting suspicious. Would a one-hour lesson every other day really cut into his and Tonks' quality time that badly?
** No way Lupin would content himself with such superficial involvement. Judging from that scene, he had a vehement craving for a chance to escape his painful predicament, if not an outright deathwish. If Harry'd budged even a little, Lupin wouldn't have rested until he was accepted full-time (and we know how persuasive he could be).
** Also, when you reread the scene pay attention to Harry's tone of voice and word choice; he's screaming insults in Remus' face, not calmly saying no. Harry has ''issues'' re: parental abandonment; the instant he heard 'Father of baby wants to leave baby behind', he stopped caring about why, he just went [[BigNo Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!]]
** What bugs me is how Harry can live with himself after mentally tormenting a friend like that, especially a friend who has saved his life on numerous occasions, taught him to defend himself and generally been nothing but kind to him. Lupin genuinely wanted to help him and not just to get away from a marriage which he appeared to have been pressured/forced into in the first place and was clearly unhappy about. No matter how he justified it, Harry was being downright evil in that scene.
* So, Hermione was unable to find any curse that would be powerful enough to destroy an Horcrux, even if the power trio launched it together. But ''Crabbe'' can cast a spell powerful enough to destroy an Horcrux, even when it was not his intention? As far as we can tell, Crabbe and Goyle were awful wizards due to their stupidity. Harry and Hermione were probably the most powerful teenagers in the books (well, ''in the books'' means "teenagers in the books", I know Voldemort and Snape were way more powerful at 17).
** The trio never found a ''legal'' spell to destroy a Horcrux. Hermione knew Fiendfyre existed but would never have tried it, even if she did know how to conjure it, because it's so dangerous. Crabbe didn't necessarily have to be powerful to cast a Fiendfyre curse, he just had to have knowledge of the spell. After all, he ended up being killed because he didn't know how to properly control it.
* In the Battle of Hogwarts, the house elves join in... using kitchen knives. Why not use their innate magic to attack from a distance?
** Who says they didn't use both?
** Kitchen knives + combat teleportation (elves can do this at Hogwarts) + small size = awesome threat
* Dumbledore was hoping that if he died without being defeated, that the Elder Wand would become a normal wand. However, that was just guesswork, and might fail. He could have encased it in rock, dumped it in an oceanic trench, and made himself Secret Keeper for its location. Then, unless it's a [[LordOfTheRings One Ring]] type artifact which ''wants'' to be found, no one will ever find it, making it a much surer bet than Dumbledore's actual plan.
** Even if it was not like One Ring, it was still an immensly powerful artefact and as such would emit lots of magical radiation or something like that making it easier to find. Hogwarts was supposed to be one of the safest storages in the world. The Keeper part makes sence though. But does the Fidelius charm pertain after the Keeper is dead?
** Presumably because the next person who found the wand would become its owner. IIRC, it's mentioned in DH that the Fidelius Charm which protected Lily and James 'died with them', which Dumby presumably knew.
*** So? They weren't the ones who cast it, they were the ones being protected. Presumably if the elder wand had been under a Fidelius and then destroyed then the Fidelius Charm would 'die' with the wand. Dumbledore's Fidelius on Sirius' house lasted past his death.
**** According to WordOfGod, when the Secret-Keeper dies, the Fidelius Charm they are linked to is weakened; ''everyone'' else who knew the secret is now like a Secret-Keeper in their turn, and able to share it with other people. That is why when Dumbledore died everyone who knew where 12 Grimmauld Place was could bring new people to it; Dumbledore had been the original Secret-Keeper for 12 Grimmauld Place.
* In the book Harry gumbles about never having learned how to magically heal. Hogwarts has no compulary First-Aid courses? Smart. Real Smart.
** Hermione uses a potion to cure Ron's wound and then another one - to cure their burns after the heist. So apparently it was taught - Harry was just BookDumb.
** Plenty of schools don't have First Aid courses, or at least very extensive ones, and plenty of students who do take First Aid classes in school don't really learn anything. Of course, you'd think that Harry Potter of all people would pay attention to First Aid, but it's not ridiculous thinking that Hogwarts doesn't offer any.
** Harry ''did'' use a healing spell on an injured team mate during a quidditch training session in book six.
* The destruction of the cup, namely the non-chalant way it was done off-screen. Both the diary and the locket defended themselves to the best of their abilities and nearly succeeded. I can understand the lack of resistance from the diadem, since it was destroyed by a spell of mass destruction, and the horcrux didn't have time to sense the danger and react, but the cup? "Oh, well, we just went into the Chamber of Secrets, took some Basilisk teeth and stabbed it." That's some mighty lazy writing there.
** I agree. Best WildMassGuessing I can apply is maybe the spirits of Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff in the diadem and the cup held the spirit more in check than in the Slytheryn one, which the horcrux part got along a little too well with.
*** Spirits of the owners stored inside their possessions sounds awfuly like...horcruxes. I don't think so.
*** I don't think he meant spirit as in "Soul" rather in the metaphoric sense.
** Horcruxes gain power from emotional closeness to their victims. The diary could attack Harry in the Chamber of Secrets because it had been draining Ginny all year, while the locket could defend itself from Ron because it had been feeding off him, Harry, and Hermione for months in the woods. The cup was in their possession for all of a day, and the diadem hadn't been touched since Harry put it on that bust when he hid the Half-Blood Prince's Potions book, during which he likely held it for all of ten seconds, so neither of them had any power with which to fight back.
*** Fair enough. However, the Marvolo ring cursed Dumbledor to near death the moment he put it on, obviously not needing to drain any "mana" from people. Such a ward was uncharasteristcally thoughtfull and competent for V, I must say, which begs the question of why weren't the other horcruxes charmed to be lethal to the touch, like the necklace in HBP. Again, I can understand the diary, since it was supposed to be used to release the Basilisk, but why not the others?
* If basilisk venom destroys Horcruxes and Harry is a Horcrux, wouldn't it have been destroyed when Harry got his arm impaled by the basilisk fang?
** A Horcrux can only be destroyed along with its vessel (the unique Harry-Voldemort situation notwithstanding). If Harry wasn't cured by the phoenix and died, then yes, the Horcrux would be gone, but the venom doesn't "exorcise" horcruxes as much as overcomes the protective wards and damages the vessel beyond repair.
* I'm the person above who explained how the Taboo was supposed to work and why Voldemort probably couldn't just make the atmosphere poisonous to muggles, but here's a more pointed thing than tabooing "hello" and having the death eaters watching the taboo alarms day and night: Why didn't Voldemort taboo the word "horcrux"? Anyone who says it is either an enemy or competition. Is it because the taboo is a government thing, that Voldemort would have had to have gone through the official channels to set it up without a prohibitive amount of effort (if at all) and didn't want any Ministry mice to get curious about horcruxes?
** A few possible reasons. We're never told how the Taboo was made it's possible that he needed the help of his followers to set up the ritual to create it and them hearing Horcrux so much might get them interested when he'd rather them stay ignorant. Another might be that he never thought anyone would say the word horcrux even if they did find out about them (using a code word instead). Another possibility is that he couldn't create a Taboo on any word but only on someone's name or alias. In short if we knew a bit more about the Taboo and how it was made we'd have a better way to question it, but we're in the dark on a lot so it's safe to say either he couldn't, or didn't think it was worth the effort.
** Voldemort does know that Dumbledore/Harry are aware of his Horcruxes until the very end of Book 7. He wouldn't have used the word "horcrux" because he wouldn't have expected anyone to say it. Barely anyone even seems to know what it is.
* How are Lupin and Tonks brave for deliberately going into battle when they didn't have to, with a son and a widowed mother at home no less?
** Care to elaborate on the "didn't have to" part? Regardless, they were hardly the only people there who had families, yet rushed into the fight to stop the evil '''that endangered those very families and everything they held dear'''.
*** From what we saw, Lupin and Tonks fighting in the battle of Hogwarts ultimately had no effect on it. It wasn't needed and while I understand that it was a war, it's still irresponsible to run out into a battle just because your husband did when you have a family that needs you more.
**** I half agree and disagree with you. On the one hand both parents fighting seems to make little sense when they just had a child. It'd make more sense for one parent to go and the other to remain behind to make sure the child is cared for in the worst case scenerio (which one should stay behind is debatable as they're both experienced). On the other hand "What we saw" of their fight was ''nothing''. For all we know they fought and killed several inner circle members and only fell against overwelming odds.
**** This way you could argue that the contribution of ''any'' single soldier in ''any'' war is negligible, and that's a rather dangerous idea for the morale. Keep in mind that if the Army of Light wins but they both die, then their relatives will be taken cared of by their friends. If it loses but one of them survive, they'll be eventually hunted down and killed as blood traitors. And anyway I too think it's unfair to say that their death were meaningless, just because they died off-screen (although the way Moody and Lupins were killed off-screen does pisses me off).
* Yet another Locket Horcrux question: why do they have to open the damned thing to destroy it? can't they just slash the locket and be done with it?
** RuleOfDrama.
* Ron and Hermione go down to the Chamber of Secrets to get the Basilisk teeth. Wait a sec, do you mean to tell me that the Basilisk had just laid there for FIVE YEARS completely undisturbed? Are you kidding me? The school underwent probably the biggest crisis ever that nearly got it closed, and they just left the thing to rot in the Chamber and forgot all about it? Nobody cared to check if maybe it had offspring or if there were some other horrible things Slytherin might've left there, the freaking Ministry wasn't interested in studying the beast or just, you know, isolating an incredibly dangerous creature full of deadly venom, the school staff didn't seal the passage just to be on the safe side. How is that possible?!!!
** Well for some of your problems they needed Harry (or a parslemouth) to get into the Chamber. I suppose Dumbledore could have gone there with Fawkes, assuming that's possible, but it's not really a danger to anyone as only Harry can get there. Also you have to remember that it's a complicated ritual to birth a basilisk (something about a chicken egg, full moon, etc) so there wasn't that big a chance of there being offspring especially since there was only ''one'' monster of Slytherin (no mate). Plus it's been over a thousand years, if Slytherin left anything that dangerous besides the Snake I think Voldemort would have used it when he found the basilisk 50 years ago.
*** Yeah, they'd need a parselmouth to get to the Chamber, how's that a problem? Moreover, it's not about danger as such - it's about people in charge apparently not giving a slightest damn. Just to recap: there is an ancient chamber, built by a powerful evil wizard, with AT LEAST one insanely dangerous monster they know about, ''right under a school full of children''. How the hell is everyone OK with that? Can you imagine that if someone found a blockbuster under a school, they'd be content with simply defusing it and leaving it there without any further investigation? The arguments you presented, while valid, look awfully like the self-delusion sessions Voldy attends (nobody will ever find the horcruxes, I don't need to check on them...nobody will ever find the horcruxes, I don't need to check on them...). And even barring the ostensible danger, was NO ONE interested in a real life Basilisk corpse? Studying it, stuffing it for some museum of magical beasts, extracting its venom (I'm looking at you, prof. Slughorn), mounting its head on a mantle...nothing? BS.
**** The way I understand it the Chamber remained dormant for 950 years, because no parslemouth ever found the Chamber. If no other parselmouth appears to find it then it'll remain dormant. Dumbledore probably thought after a difficult experience Harry would want to avoid the Chamber and never brought up the idea of exploring it further for whatever reason. Yes, it seems silly but that's about the only reasoning I can think of. I agree it'd make sense that after Dumbledore realized that the diary was indeed a Horcrux and Voldemort did create more of them that he'd either go down there himself or have Harry retreive a Basalisk fang so that they'd have another way to safely destroy Horcruxes without the Sword of Gryffindor. Ultimately, I think somewhere along the line people either didn't believe the story, or lost interest in it enough that no one bothered Dumbledore or Harry about retreiving anything in the Chamber. Silly I know but the populace of the Wizarding world is weird like that.
*** Alternately, Lucius paid the Ministry to look the other way.
* Why make such a huge deal about destoying Voldemort post "The Forest Again" chapter? Why make such a big deal about Narcissa not revealing to Voldemort that Harry is indeed still alive? Because of Harry's intended sacrificial move, it's eventually made clear that none of Voldemort's spells ''hold''. "He can't touch them." Voldemort was effectively powerless at this point.
** At the time it's not known that Voldemort's spells don't hold. I don't think Harry figured that out until he was hit by crucio and it didn't hurt. Narcissa's not revealing Harry was alive is important because it not only redeems her character, but it helps Harry. Even though Voldemort's spells don't hurt him the Death Eater's spells still can.
** Besides, V could still hurt ''other'' people, outside Hogwarts. I doubt that Harry's sacrifice gave protection to the whole wide world, but more likely only to those in immediate danger.
* Why does Voldy call Lucius and Bella by their first names and all of the other Death Eaters by their last names? If it was to show that he favoured them, then why does he still call Lucius by his first name in Deathly Hallows?
** In Bellatrix's case, it may be differentiate her from the two other Death Eaters named Lestrange. Maybe Abraxas Malfoy was a Death Eater back in the day, creating a similar situation with Lucius, and then when Abraxas died, Voldemort continued to say "Lucius" out of habit.
** That makes sense, especially since in Order of the Phoenix, Lucius refers to each of the Lestranges by their first names and everyone else by their last. But that makes me wonder whether Voldy calls the Carrows and Narcissa by the their first names too. (Haven't read HBP or DH in a while, so if the answer's in there, sorry.)
* Am I the only one who thought Lily's patronus was SUPER LAME? Is she such an uninteresting character that she gets nothing more creative than the {{distaff counterpart}} of her husband's patronus? It would be slightly okay if it turned after she fell in love with James, since I thought Snape taking on Lily's patronus was super romantic, but it is implied that her patronus was always a doe, which is just kind of lame. I am disappoint.
** Counter question. When did she learn to cast a patronus? Before or after she fell in love with James? Keep in mind it's ''extremely'' special for Harry to cast a patronus at 13 and most of the DA only learned to cast it because Harry helped them and even then most had trouble. I'm of the opinion she never learned the spell until after she fell in love with James at least on the subconscious level. After all Tonks's patronus changed to reflect her happy thoughts so it's entirely possible that Lily's was reflected by her happy thoughts.
* Couldn't Harry just put on his Cloak of Invisibility before escaping from the Dursley's house? It seems to me it would've eliminated the need for the dopplegangers. He did it in HBP, when he and D returned to Hogwarts from their mission, so obviously the Cloak can cloak a broom-rider.
* After Hermione's wand is taken, she says that Voldemort will know that Harry's wand is broken because of priori incantanum. But her wand broke his wand ''weeks'' earlier, and she cast dozens of spells after breaking his wand. Why would that be a concern?
** Technically the villains could've watched ''all'' the spells the wand had ever performed (at the cemetary in [=GoF=] V's wand replayed the spells it performed 15 years before).
* Does anyone else think it's kinda weird that Angelina was dating Fred and then ended up marrying George? Yeah, your boyfriend from school isn't necessarily your true love, but it's still a bit odd to go on to marry the identical twin of someone you dated.
** I always assumed it was a Twin Swap deal and it was really George she was dating and after Fred died he had to come clean.
** Technically all we know is that Fred and Angelina went together to the Yule Ball (though we see Fred there [[WhatHappenedToTheMouse without her]], oddly). For all we know, that might have been their only date, and we don't know when she and George got together. (Or, for an [[WildMassGuessing alternate theory]]: J.K. didn't mean to do a SettleForSibling at all, she just forgot which twin she'd originally set her up with.)
* What exactly happened to Emmeline Vance? She was a member of the Order who died sometime between books 5 and 6; Snape used her death as a way to try to win Bella's trust in the first chapter of book 6, because he said that he gave Voldemort the information that led to her murder. This troper usually used that statement as backup for her belief that Snape really was evil. In this book, he was revealed to be good, but we never heard anything about Emmeline. Was she sacrificed for the good of the Order? Did Snape actually have little to do with her death and just bank on Bellatrix not knowing details? It didn't seem that he could have given information that indirectly led to her death, as she was implied to be murdered, not killed in some sort of battle or something. Does anyone know if JKR said anything on the subject? Or does anyone have any theories?
[[/folder]]
------
[[folder: Unsorted Examples pt7]]
* Stan Shunpike just bugs me. First, in book 6, it just bugs me that the Ministry is considered to be True Evil for arresting him because he's obviously not a death eater, he's just joking about it. Um, going around bragging about how you're a terrorist and have all these terrorist attacks planned is going to get you thrown into jail in the muggle world too, even if it is just empty boasting. Then, in book 7, it turns out that hey, the Ministry was right! Stan's one of the guys who tries to attack Harry when they're taking him from Privet Drive, and Harry has not a second of reflection that maybe the Ministry did something right or that he might be wrong, he only says Stan's obviously imperiused. Now, on a mission to eliminate the one you think is literally the only person who can stop you, would you send some useless mind-controlled drone if you had anyone else available? And really, why would you bother to imperius Stan Shunpike, of all people, when you could probably effectively imperius the vast majority of Wizarding Britain's population. The conclusion anyone who hasn't already given Harry an omniscient morality license would reach is that yes, Stan Shunpike is and was a Death Eater, particularly given the skepticism already shown to the "but I was imperiused" excuse in previous books. Especially when Harry only knows Stan from a few rides on the Knight Bus and a couple glances of him as a comic relief character.
** Well, the only one who actually cares about Stan's imprisonment is Harry, and he's largely an idiot. But to be honest to him, the real problem with the Ministry is not that they arrested Stan, but rather that it was their '''only''' achievement (not to mention, of course, the whole ordeal with Umbridge). They are not evil as much as horrendously stupid and incompetent. As for the chase scene in Book 7, while I agree in general, I can at least think of a reason to Imperio Stan: although it'd be uncharacteristically brilliant for him, V could've sent an obviously innocent (well, from Harry's POV, at least) Imperioused person sent after ''each'' of the seven dopplegangers to root out the real Potter.
** It's generally accepted by the adults, or at least Mr. Weasley, that Stan isn't a Death Eater and the Ministry just wanted to look like they were doing anything. They interrogated him and had no reason to suspect him of any Death Eater activity, but they wanted to act like they'd made an accomplishment. And how many Death Eaters do they really have? Malfoy doesn't have a wand, and there were a bunch who were doing other things. Sure, they could take control of the majority of the population, but that's probably a lot of effort. Stan Shunpike was in Azkaban, which the Death Eaters pretty much control, so he's easily accessible.
*** Even assuming Stan Shunpike is not a Death Eater, getting thrown in jail for going around bragging about your terrorist plans is completely reasonable. Try going to an airport, shouting that you have a bomb, and saying "yeah, I was just trying to impress my dumbass friends" when the cops come to get you and see how long you stay out of prison. Now that going to Azkaban no longer involves having all of your happiness and your soul slowly sucked away, it really isn't disproportionate retribution. There are also legitimate, non-venal reasons for wanting to reassure the public and avoid widespread panic, as well as for not entrusting the fate of your nation to three 17-year-old kids. McGonagall and the rest of the Order try and pressure the trio to tell them what they're doing too. No, the Ministry doesn't really deserve a whole lot of trust from Harry & Co., but with Fudge gone they also started publishing useful pamphlets and info. Really, the only thing that the Scrimgeour administration does that is "wrong" is not firing and arresting Umbridge (which, to be fair, is a pretty big one).
* On the subject of manipulating people. When Hermione had been changing her parents' personalities (as discussed above), she at least had the valid excuse that she was protecting them and even so she had felt terrible about it. Fast forward to the finale, where all the heroes grew up happily in the new, ostensibly more enlightened, open-minded and conscientious Wizarding world. What are we told in a non-chalant, humorous and matter-of-fact way? That Ron (who's apparently an Auror(!) now) put the Confundus Spell (basically "Imperius Lite") on a random innocent Muggle...in order to pass his driving test. What. The. Fuck. I mean, he could've taken the test again (I took it about 7 times before I passed), or, hell, he could've ''bribed'' the instructor, which would've been bad, of course, but a normal, amicable kind of bad. But nope, he just took his mighty wand out and subdued the feeble Muggle mind and then treated it like a joke. Suddenly, RonTheDeathEater doesn't look so absurd anymore.
** The Confundus Charm doesn't honestly seem to be treated like a big deal by the characters. It's less an Imperius curse and more like just confusing someone. It's like if you talk someone into doing something by just going off on a tangent, almost. Hermione did it on Cormac McLaggen, and Dawlish had it done to him about four times, and it's been used before casually, though I can't think of other examples. And why is bribery better? It's still using an unfair advantage that you have over someone to get them to do something that they shouldn't.
*** It's better because at least it doesn't violate free will, for the potential bribee is perfectly capable of refusing. Anyway, I only mentioned bribery as a more admissable way to cheat then MindRape. Naturally, the right thing to do would be to appoint another test and train harder for it. As for the harmless nature of Confundus, I beg to disagree. Reread the DH, where Snape Confunds Mundungus into suggesting the plan with seven Potters to the order. It doesn't look like "confusing someone" as much as "hypnotising someone into doing exactly as told, including forgetting about being hypnotised". Sure, it's much less severe then Imperious, hence "Imperious Lite". But it's one thing when it's done by a stupid teenager or in times of war, and a whole lot another when it's casually performed by an adult(and Auror at that) for such a triffle reason and treated as a joke. DarkSide always starts from small things.
**** Most of the wizarding world considers screwing around with someone else's mind to really not be that big a deal, unless it gets so far that it completely subsumes the identity and will of the victim and turns them into a puppet/tool of the caster, which is why the imperius is still an unforgivable. Just like a bar fight for us is usually, while not cool, also not a huge deal unless it goes so far that someone pulls a knife or a gun or gets beaten to an inch of their life. Wizards casually obliviate, confund, and use legilimency and love charms on each other and muggles all the time. Many muggles and way too many fanfic writers (judging from the number of times I've read Harry-Gets-Insanely-Pissed-At-Snape-And/Or-Dumbles-For-Using-Legilimency-On-Him in a fic, because, hey, all fanfic writers are muggles) consider all that to be mind rape. And that's why we have a trope called ValuesDissonance. A wizard who's been confunded will be a little annoyed, possibly more depending on what they did while confunded, but otherwise will get over it. Ron is one of the more clueless about the muggle world of the wizards, he considers being confunded no big deal, he can't fathom why someone else would think it was, just like you seem unable to fathom how someone else could consider it to be anything but mind rape.
**** While all you say is generally true, it still bugs me because this incident took place in the end of the story. You know, when the heroes are supposed to have grown up, become more responsible, and learned something about the importance of doing what's right, not what's easy, after they'd witnessed the atrocities that ultimately result from the sence of self-superiority and abuse of power. You'd just think there would be some freaking change in their values, especially in regard to Muggles!
[[/folder]]

[[folder:!!! JustBugsMe about the film:]]
* At the start of the movie they show Hermione wiping her parent's memories. Fine. Bizarrely though Hermione then disappers from childhood pictures BackToTheFuture style? WHY?! I assume it was metaphorical but JUST EXPLAIN!!
** I'm not sure how to break it nicely, but please consider the off-chance that '''Hermione erased herself from those pictures as well'''. With magic.
*** In fairness, I only saw her casting Obliviate, which does not erase images. And her wand was still pointed at her parents. So no, I don't think it does make sense. She COULD do that, but she didn't. The movie just added in extra drama by giving 'Obliviate' more visual powers that could be shown rather than told to the viewer.
**** The movies are a lot more liberal with spells than the books. ''Lots'' of magic throughout the series is done without wording (see "the "bang" spell" discussion below) and frequently without wands. That is if you absolutely abhore the idea that she could cast the spell off-screen, [[TheLawOfConservationOfDetail and we only saw the result]].
** There is still a problem with her spell, however. Wouldn't Mr. and Mrs. Granger wonder about why do they suddenly have so many empty and semi-empty pictures? It'd make more sense if Hermie removed the pictures alltogether and took them with her.
*** Taking a leaf/logic from Artemis Fowl; The human mind is pretty good at filling in blanks and making up stories for those blanks. Or at least, that's what I thought they were showing. Hermione is literally still in the pictures, but once she took herself from her parents memories, their minds didn't register 'Oh, that's my kid in the pictures on the mantle' and came up with some other explanation to explain away blank images and backgrounds etc.
** Its a visual metaphor to throw a bone to the two people watching who never read the book.
* When the trio are being chased through a crowded Ministry of Magic atrium filled with Hogwarts-trained wizards and the spells start flying, you would ''think'' that wizards everywhere would be tossing up shield charms everywhere to protect themselves. Instead they just sort of stand there like muggles as the battle rages.
** I would guess that it was just shocking to be standing there when suddenly a battle erupts around you and you're not sure who the enemy is. They did seem a little... helpless, but not everyone would necessarily be good at DADA. It might be optional after [=OWLs=].
** It wasn't exactly a battle, the DE were chasing some intruders out and most of the employees don't have anything to do with that. Furthermore, the one they were trying to catch was Harry Potter, they are not going to be in their way or stop them to help the Death Eaters.
* Wasn't The Burrow friggin' BURNED at the sixth movie?
** Probably repaired by magic, but you're right - TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodPlot.
** If you payed too much attention, you would've noticed that a part of the building was painted differently from the rest. It was repaired off-screen.
** ...Then what was the point of the scene where The Burrow gets destroyed in the sixth film?
** The point wasn't to show them living in a destroyed house in the next movie while there is a wedding just next anyhow. It probably was to have an action scene in the middle of the movie, maybe as replacement for cutting most of the battle against the DE after Dumbledore's death.
* Why are there a few scenes that are clearly just for {{Padding}} while there is clearly so much else that was left out?
** Because one man's {{Padding}} is another man's CharacterDevelopment.
* I'd like to know more about this spell that anyone with a wand can cast. I call it the "bang" spell. In the books every spell is named. In the movie they wave their wand and something goes "bang"! It's the wizard version of having a gun, I guess.
** In the 6th book wordless magic was introduced and anyway half the time some body fight, they "throw jinxes and curses around". Apparently they are using the "bang" curse at that.
** I've always figured they were using nonverbal versions of hexes that make stuff explode, like Confringo.
* OK, correct me if I'm wrong on the facts about what the movies did or did not include, but what really irritates me is the shard of mirror that Harry keeps looking at. In the book, the mirror shard held sentimental value as it was from his dead Godfather and he had briefly believed it would help him talk to Sirius from Behind the Veil. The problem is that the mirror DID NOT APPEAR in the fifth movie. Am I wrong? It was never explained. And then, instead of remedying this in HBP or even DH part 1, they just ignore it. They have him with the mirror shard, but with no explanation for why Harry is carrying around a bit of broken mirror. Would it really be that hard for Hermione to say 'What's that, Harry?' and for him to tell her (for the viewer's benefit) 'It's a bit of a two-way mirror Sirius gave me before he died. I can't help hoping that he might appear in it...' Obviously better written would be nice, but still. It makes it appear random and weird. Why would they do that? And, as someone else pointed out, there was so much useless filler - why not add something that needed to be explained?
** That is a very good point.
* It irritates me that Dudley's redemption was cut out. I know it wasn't all that terribly important to the overall plot, but it was a nice little indicator how much things have changed for Harry. And pretty much the only one that wasn't incredibly depressing. I'm not asking for a whole scene, but even something as much as a little conversation as the Dursley's are leaving. Grindlewald's too, though his had a little less character growth "umph" to it. His was also a good way of showing how people change, and really would have required even less screwing with the movie, as he was in a scene anyway and had a conversation with Voldemort.
** Dudley's redemption being cut out bugged me, too. I've been wondering why that is, why it nags me, and I've found the answer. Without that last bit of character development, Dudley really has no place in the entire series, outside of being Harry's tormentor in the first book. Without that final moment of realization, he's a static character, a prop. Not that he was the most intricate character in the first place...
** And it would have been simple: just a close-up on Petunia, nodding at Harry, and a close-up on Dudley, waving at Harry, before they depart.
** I read in an interview before the DH movie came out that the actor who plays Dudley had lost a dramatic amount of weight since the last time he was in one of the films, however, he said that they had decided to let him be in DH with padding instead of recasting. Still, it's possible that his physical transformation made close-up scenes problematic. (Google for current pictures of that actor -- his name is Harry Melling -- and you'll see what I mean.
*** Dude...he's...pretty. I mean [[{{Bishonen}} really pretty]]. Damn near {{Twilight}} pretty. *{{Beat}}* What? Oh, sorry. I was lost in his eyes.
*** Part of the point of Dudley's CharacterDevelopment was that by the later books, he was no longer fat: in GobletOfFire he was put on a diet, during that year he started working out, and by OrderOfThePheonix, he was muscular rather than fat. I think the actor looks fine for playing a later-book Dudley.
** Cut dialogue from the movie. Taken from the [[http://www.mypdfscripts.com/screenplays/harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows---->part-1 DH Pt1 screenplay online]]:
-->'''Dudley:''' I don’t understand. Isn’t he coming with us?
-->'''Uncle Vernon:''' Who?
-->'''Dudley:''' Harry.
-->'''Uncle Vernon:''' Absolutely not.
-->'''Dudley:''' Why?
-->'''Uncle Vernon:''' Well, because -- he doesn’t want to, do you, boy?
-->'''Harry:'''Absolutely not. Besides I’m just a waste of space. Isn’t that right, Vernon?
-->(Uncle Vernon stares hard at Harry.)
-->'''Uncle Vernon:''' Come on, Dudley, we’re off.
-->(Uncle Vernon starts for the car. Dudley hesitates, then crosses the lawn to Harry, extends his hand.)
-->'''Dudley:''' I don’t think you’re a waste of space.
-->'''Harry:'''Well... thanks.
-->Harry grips Dudley’s hand, then watches his cousin turn and lope back across the lawn.
-->'''Harry:''' (under his breath) See you, Big D.
* Did the dance scene exist soley to give harmonians a bone because Harry and Hermione already had more chemistry than Ron. In fact if i was Ron amulet or not i would find it hard to believe she wasnt cheating on him without that pointless fucking dance scene.
** I just assumed that Harry tried dacing with Hermione in an attempt to cheer her up after Ron left.
** I thought it was that, and a semi-BigLippedAlligatorMoment meant to make the film look slightly less bleak and depressing.
** I thought that scene was brilliant! Believe it or not friends can dance all the time without having romantic connotations, especially if they've been best friends other since they were ELEVEN. It was a great way to emphasize exactly how dismal everything was.
** It bugs me more that the scene added absolutely nothing to the plot it wasn't in the books and would prefer to have seen Dudley's redemption.
*** Did Dudley even need redemption at that point? In the books, he was a constant bully and threat to Harry from his childhood until Harry put hand to wand. In the movies, he was a bit of a brat.
* The ministry of magic seemed a bit too, er, mugglely to me. I mean, suits, clipboards and modern security guard garb? Eh? From a society which writes using quills and ink on parchment? Doesn't really fit.
** MostWritersAreMuggles ?
** They've been phasing out the witchy stuff since the third film. I'm not saying it's necessarily good (or bad, for that matter), just that it's not sudden.
* This one will probably be answered in the next film, but for now it's a bugs me mixed in with a good dollop of FridgeLogic; how the ''hell'' did [[spoiler:Snape know where to find Harry and Hermione? It wasn't as if they'd grabbed a certain snide portrait from Grimmauld Place that could listen in on where they were and tell Snape they were in the Forest of Dean. If the other Death Eaters couldn't find them, how did he manage it this time without Phineas's help?]]
** Possible answer: [[spoiler:Since the bit about the mirror being originally given to Harry by Sirius got cut, the writers might want to swing the cheap excuse of '''Snape''' having the other end before passing it on to Aberforth or something along those lines. That way, while Harry and Hermione were talking in the Forest of Dean, Snape might have overheard them at the other side of the mirror when she said she'd gone there camping with her parents before.]]
* If the movie ends after the Trio escapes from the Malfoys' mansion, then all there is left for the last one is the bank heist and the Hogwarts battle. Although both episodes are indeed very intence and action-rich, is it really enough for a full-length movie?
** They also have to tie up the copious amounts of loose ends the last seven movies have created. Mostly by omitting things from the books which turned out to be vital later. [[{{ptitle67cpn4dlu8j9}} Which is pretty much everything]].
** I suggest you re-read the book one more time. With all the action and important scenes condensated in the last third of the book they could ''easily'' make a whole movie with just the Battle at Hogwarts part.
* Ok... I can understand the horcrux [[spoiler:Harry and Hermione making out]], that's acceptable... But why the hell were [[spoiler: they naked]]?!
** It was all done to piss Ron off. Showing them making out naked (presumably about to have sex) would piss Ron off a lot more than just common making out. As for a meta-reason, well, fanservice. Both actors are of-age now, might as well have fun with it.
*** Uhm, is it ''wise'' to piss off a guy with the sword?
**** Well, the idea was to get Ron pissed off at Harry and Hermione, or at least demoralize him into a HeroicBSOD. The horcrux just didn't consider that Ron might ShootTheMessenger instead.
** There are many reasons to suspect that the producer is more fond of Harry/Hermione than Ron/Hermione. Which explains this scene.
* Is it me or [[BackForTheDead Dobby's sudden appearence in the film]] was an AssPull? I mean, he hadn't appeared in the films since the second one.
** The films had to play catchup with that. In the books: Goblet of Fire, Dobby appears working in Hogwart's kitchens. In Order of the Phoenix, he's the one who tells Harry about the Room of Requirement, and he spies on Draco Malfoy for Harry in Half Blood Prince. You can blame the films for this.
** I guess the question is, since they cut Dobby's part in the last several films, would it have been better to cut Dobby from this film as well, and give his role to someone else (who?), or to bring him back?
** To me it works if you consider Dobby as a representative of the early Chris Columbus movies when things were light. When he died it's like Harry's childhood died too.
** Yes, Dobby hasn't been in the films since Chamber Of Secrets, but how does that make him showing up in Deathly Hallows an AssPull? It's not as though his reason for showing up is any more explored in the book (up to the point that the film reached).
[[/folder]]

[[folder: Hermione Obliviates Her Parents]]