History Headscratchers / HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsTheDeathlyHallows

25th May '17 1:36:45 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Alright, but if you have to expend your life under a cloak... yeah at some point you'll be wishing for Death to come.
24th May '17 9:07:16 PM sugaricequeen
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Not exactly. He could just eat while under the cloak, and use magic to keep himself clean. Or, he only wore the cloak most of the time but took breaks when he felt he needed or wanted to. I personally think the legend is real.
30th Apr '17 4:28:33 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Because cats not only use their eyes, they have also very superior sense of smell and hearing, we don’t really know if Mrs. Norris sees under the cloak, we only know that Harry things so, but is just possible that he never thought that she just smells him, as any normal cat would. Besides, who care if the cloak do not hide you from… a house cat? Kind of nitpicking; “Damn, this cloak protected me from those giants and that dragon, but my grandma’s pet sees me, this isn’t really something especial!”.

to:

*** Because cats not only use their eyes, they have also very superior sense of smell and hearing, we don’t really know if Mrs. Norris sees under the cloak, we only know that Harry things so, but is just possible that he never thought that she just smells him, as any normal cat would. Besides, who care cares if the cloak do not hide you from… a house cat? Kind of nitpicking; “Damn, this cloak protected me from those giants and that dragon, but my grandma’s pet sees me, this isn’t really something especial!”.



** The “''is the Cloak of Invisibility, not the Cloak of Nothing Can Detect Me''” is a good point, let’s see: Isn´t Dumbledore telepathic (Legilimency)? so he could at the very least perceive that Harry was under the cloak in Hagrid’s cabin for example, Mrs. Norris smells him, Moody’s Eye might perceive heath for example (we don’t really know who it works but it makes sense, it could be one of its functions to perceive changes in temperature around) therefore he sees Harry and co. under the cloak as body heath silhouettes, that or effectively as said before the cloak cause a distortion in the X-Ray effect of his eye, Dementors are blind and only feel emotions and Luna’s case was a movie in-joke. Though the idea that the cloak is sentient and can choose when to show his user to a possible ally is a very cool idea too.

to:

** The “''is the Cloak of Invisibility, not the Cloak of Nothing Can Detect Me''” is a good point, let’s see: Isn´t Dumbledore telepathic (Legilimency)? so he could at the very least perceive that Harry was under the cloak in Hagrid’s cabin for example, Mrs. Norris smells him, Moody’s Eye might perceive heath for example (we don’t really know who how it works but it makes sense, it could be one of its functions to perceive changes in temperature around) therefore he sees Harry and co. under the cloak as body heath silhouettes, that or effectively as said before the cloak cause a distortion in the X-Ray effect of his eye, Dementors are blind and only feel emotions and Luna’s case was a movie in-joke. Though the idea that the cloak is sentient and can choose when to show his user to a possible ally is a very cool idea too.


Added DiffLines:

** The tale has to be a legend anyway. It is impossible that the younger brother spent several years hiding from Death under the cloak, he had to eat and wash and other stuffs that needed him to be outside the cloak at times.
26th Feb '17 10:03:15 PM IndirectActiveTransport
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Even if you accept the children's story, Moody's eye itself could be the product of an {{anthropomorphic personification}} or {{physical god}}. If you don't, and the cloak is just a brilliant human invention, well, then so is the eye. Depending on how much Harry tells people "the magical" eye may become an object of legend itself.
22nd Feb '17 12:56:53 PM ScroogeMacDuck
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Just because you can claim the ownership without killing, doesn't mean killing is not a valid option. V's reasoning was that ling before he stole the Wand, it had already switched allegiance to Snape, who'd killed it's master, hence V needs to claim its allegiance from Snape, and since he cannot steal the Wand from Sev, he has to "defreat" him. Sure, stunning might probably work, but for Voldemort MurderIsTheBestOption. Of course, you'd think that after the Death Eaters returned from their raid, he'd want to hear or see how exactly his nemesis died, so Drako's disarming of DD would've been revealed, but that's just me.

to:

** Just because you can claim the ownership without killing, doesn't mean killing is not a valid option. V's reasoning was that ling before he stole the Wand, it had already switched allegiance to Snape, who'd killed it's master, hence V needs to claim its allegiance from Snape, and since he cannot steal the Wand from Sev, he has to "defreat" "defeat" him. Sure, stunning might probably work, but for Voldemort MurderIsTheBestOption. Of course, you'd think that after the Death Eaters returned from their raid, he'd want to hear or see how exactly his nemesis died, so Drako's disarming of DD would've been revealed, but that's just me.


Added DiffLines:

** It's ''not'' useless. It does one, very useful thing: it brings the souls of the dead onto the mortal plane. This backfired for Cadmus, because he couldn't bear the grief of being next to the soul of his beloved without being truly able to connect with her. But it doesn't have an independant "drives people to suicide" spell on it, it's just the effect it had on Cadmus due to the soul he recalled being that of his dead girlfriend. It ''could'' be very useful, in a more pragmatic way. For instance, you can call back a murder victim and asks them who did it. You can call back Fermat and ask him what that proof of that last theorem ''was''. Etc. Etc. Also, you can call anybody at all and ask them what the Afterlife is like, and write that down and make it public, finally lifting these issues for good.
14th Jan '17 11:27:53 PM QuarrelsomeChevon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Hold on, this troper is confused. How is the RS useless? No, it doesn't bring the dead back to life fully, but it does protect Harry when he activates it; he's able to slip past Voldie's defenses right to his inner circle. One could assume that the stone/the ghosts from the stone would do the same for anyone who activated it, although it might have just been ThePowerofLove yet again helping Harry out. (Rowling hasn't said either way, I'm guessing?)

to:

* Hold on, this troper is confused. How is the RS useless? No, it doesn't bring the dead back to life fully, but it does protect Harry when he activates it; he's able to slip past Voldie's defenses right to his inner circle. One could assume that the stone/the ghosts from the stone would do the same for anyone who activated it, although it might have just been ThePowerofLove ThePowerOfLove yet again helping Harry out. (Rowling hasn't said either way, I'm guessing?)guessing?)
** Even if it was something more than ThePowerOfLove, those are still incredibly specific circumstances in which it could prove to be useful. Most people, magic and Muggle alike, wouldn't have as much foreseeable use for a stone that brings phantoms of the deceased back into existence, as they would a powerful, unbeatable wand (which could just be used to cast defensive spells, including a Patronus) or a cloak of invisibility (which Harry could've used to sneak past everything undeterred). The ambiguity surrounding the effects these phantoms have only further undermines its usefulness - how is anyone supposed to know for sure that it'll work when they need it to?
14th Jan '17 10:08:32 PM QuarrelsomeChevon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* This differs from the headscratchers posted above in that is focuses less on the specifics of wand transfer and more on this...stigma that seems to surround the Elder Wand itself. In ''The Tales of Beedle the Bard'', Dumbledore's commentary seems to suggest that only very power-hungry wizards have searched for and claimed ownership of the wand, that no witch has ever been recorded doing so, and even he states that he himself had a weakness for power when he was alive...Even out of the main trio, Ron is the only one who would choose the wand first out of all three hallows. So why is the Elder Wand treated as "bad" for being powerful, when it's really only combative, power-seeking people who've ever gone looking for it? There's nothing to suggest the wand itself exudes some aura that impairs people's judgement and makes them act that way - it's just the temperament of those who seek it out - meaning at least one ''good'' witch or wizard ''could'' be interest in the wand's uses outside of combat, yes? When it's labelled as "the most powerful wand", does that "powerful" extend to anything more than being unbeatable in a duel and being able to repair other wands?

to:

* This differs from the headscratchers posted above in that is focuses less on the specifics of wand transfer and more on this...stigma that seems to surround Even after Harry snaps the Elder Wand itself. In ''The Tales of Beedle the Bard'', (or returns it to Dumbledore's commentary seems to suggest that only very power-hungry wizards have searched for tomb, in the book), and claimed ownership especially if you don't believe the Tale of the wand, Three Brothers was entirely true...Isn't there always a possibility that no witch has ever been recorded doing so, and even he states that he himself had someone could just make a weakness for power when he was alive...Even out of the main trio, Ron is the only one who would choose the wand first out of all three hallows. So why is the new Elder Wand treated as "bad" for being powerful, when it's really Wand? Its only combative, power-seeking people who've ever gone looking for it? There's nothing to suggest the wand itself exudes some aura that impairs people's judgement two components were wood from an elder tree and makes them act that way - it's just the temperament of those who seek it out - meaning at least one ''good'' witch or wizard ''could'' be interest in the wand's uses outside of combat, yes? When it's labelled as "the most powerful wand", does that "powerful" extend to anything more than being unbeatable in a duel and being able to repair other wands?Thestral-tail core.
2nd Oct '16 2:11:58 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The “''is the Cloak of Invisibility, not the Cloak of Nothing Can Detect Me''” is a good point, let’s see: Isn´t Dumbledore telepathic (Legilimency)? so he could at the very least perceive that Harry was under the cloak in Hagrid’s cabin for example, Mrs. Norris smells him, Moody’s Eye might perceive heath for example (we don’t really know who it works but it makes sense, it could be one of its functions to perceive changes in temperature around) therefore he sees Harry and co. under the cloak as body heath silhouettes, that or effectively as said before the cloak cause a distortion in the X-Ray effect of his eye, Dementors are blind and only feel emotions and Luna’s case was a movie in-joke. Though the idea that the cloak is sentient and can choose when to show his user to a possible ally is a very cool idea too.



** The “''is the Cloak of Invisibility, not the Cloak of Nothing Can Detect Me''” is a good point, let’s see: Isn´t Dumbledore telepathic (Legilimency)? so he could at the very least perceive that Harry was under the cloak in Hagrid’s cabin for example, Mrs. Norris smells him, Moody’s Eye might perceive heath for example (we don’t really know who it works but it makes sense, it could be one of its functions to perceive changes in temperature around) therefore he sees Harry and co. under the cloak as body heath silhouettes, that or effectively as said before the cloak cause a distortion in the X-Ray effect of his eye, Dementors are blind and only feel emotions and Luna’s case was a movie in-joke. Though the idea that the cloak is sentient and can choose when to show his user to a possible ally is a very cool idea too.
2nd Oct '16 2:10:22 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** The “''is the Cloak of Invisibility, not the Cloak of Nothing Can Detect Me''” is a good point, let’s see: Isn´t Dumbledore telepathic (Legilimency)? so he could at the very least perceive that Harry was under the cloak in Hagrid’s cabin for example, Mrs. Norris smells him, Moody’s Eye might perceive heath for example (we don’t really know who it works but it makes sense, it could be one of its functions to perceive changes in temperature around) therefore he sees Harry and co. under the cloak as body heath silhouettes, that or effectively as said before the cloak cause a distortion in the X-Ray effect of his eye, Dementors are blind and only feel emotions and Luna’s case was a movie in-joke. Though the idea that the cloak is sentient and can choose when to show his user to a possible ally is a very cool idea too.
2nd Oct '16 1:56:21 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

***Because cats not only use their eyes, they have also very superior sense of smell and hearing, we don’t really know if Mrs. Norris sees under the cloak, we only know that Harry things so, but is just possible that he never thought that she just smells him, as any normal cat would. Besides, who care if the cloak do not hide you from… a house cat? Kind of nitpicking; “Damn, this cloak protected me from those giants and that dragon, but my grandma’s pet sees me, this isn’t really something especial!”.
This list shows the last 10 events of 76. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsTheDeathlyHallows