History Headscratchers / HarryPotterAndTheHalfBloodPrince

16th Oct '17 2:10:03 PM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** That's very subjective. I took exactly the opposite; that most wizards have nothing against muggles and other even have a fancy for muggles, that's why the really muggle-haters like the DE were despise by mainstream society in a similar way how we despise white supremacists. But of course, I like the books and enjoy reading them instead of hating them and feeling like they present a fantasy version of Literature/NineteenEightyFour.
13th Oct '17 3:36:52 AM Gess
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Well, power is still power, regardless of the ideology. Remember, "there's no good or evil, only power and those too weak to pursue it". If Harry did indeed kill the goddamn ''Voldemort'' at the tender age of one, not only would going after him be a sure suicide, but when he grows up and becomes the next Dark Lord, what, do you think the Ex-Death Eaters would say: "nuhuh, we're not joining you, you're not a blood supremacist!"? Of course not, they'll join him both to avoid being horribly murdered and expecting to be granted positions of power under his regime. I'm pretty sure that's how it was with V for the majority of them as well. The pack "believes" whatever the leader believes. Also, I said it, and I'll repeat it: ALL wizards in this wretched Verse hate and/or despise no-majes, the only difference is that some of them were brazen hypocrites about it. So the Death Eaters could reasonably expect that Dark Lord Harry would be more or less on board with them about the "Muggle Question".
12th Oct '17 7:28:10 AM tafelshrew
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** It wasn't like that. Bella wondered why Severus didn't kill Harry ''after'' he was enrolled in Hogwarts. And he responded that he was initially curious about wheter or not the Dark Potter theory might be correct. After he decided that it's not, there was simply no point in trying to kill Harry, risking his cushy job in he process, if not freedom and life.

to:

** It wasn't like that. Bella wondered why Severus didn't kill Harry ''after'' he was enrolled in Hogwarts. And he responded that he was initially curious about wheter whether or not the Dark Potter theory might be correct. After he decided that it's not, there was simply no point in trying to kill Harry, risking his cushy job in he process, if not freedom and life.life.
*** Fair enough; evidently I misremembered that detail. But why is there this conflation of "Pureblood supremacist" and "Dark"? We still have the question of why a supposedly loyal Death Eater would consider transferring his loyalty to his master's killer just because said killer might have used a similar kind of magic to Voldemort.
4th Oct '17 9:14:35 PM H.N.Levian
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

**** The spell Snape cut James with almost definitely wasn't Sectumsempra. We never hear the incantation for the spell Snape used, but the effects are not consistent with what Sectumsempra does elsewhere. There's no reason to assume that, every time we see Snape use any sort of cutting spell, that it automatically has to be Sectumsempra.
2nd Oct '17 1:28:21 PM Gess
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** It wasn't like that. Bella wondered why Severus didn't kill Harry ''after'' he was enrolled in Hogwarts. And he responded that he was initially curious about wheter or not the Dark Potter theory might be correct. After he decided that it's not, there was simply no point in trying to kill Harry, risking his cushy job in he process, if not freedom and life.
2nd Oct '17 2:02:15 AM tafelshrew
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

*** Except Snape also uses it on James in the Pensieve flashback. Given how everyone and their dog goes on about how much Harry resembles his father, you'd think someone would have said "but of course his scar was on his cheek or wherever". Evidently it can heal, just as Rictusempra doesn't last forever.


Added DiffLines:

[[/folder]]

[[folder: How is that a reason not to kill him?]]
*In the first chapter, Bellatrix and Snape run through all the questions the fans were asking about "if you're on Voldemort's side, why haven't you done various evil things before now?", and one question she asks is "why didn't you kill Harry as a baby or young child before he came under Dumbledore's protection at Hogwarts?" Snape replies that he, like others, believed Harry could only have defeated Voldemort as a baby by possessing great Dark powers of his own, and that he was destined to grow up into the next Dark Lord. Bellatrix believes this, but why? Leaving aside the question of what makes someone a Dark wizard in the first place (because nothing about that makes much sense), the Death Eaters had a specific ideology: Pureblood supremacism. People like Lucius and Bellatrix joined because they came from Pureblood supremacist families, people like Snape joined because they fell in with a bad crowd and believed it was the only group that would accept them, and people like Pettigrew joined because they gravitate to the biggest bully in the playground. Assuming for the sake of argument that Harry would have grown up to be a Dark Lord and that you can tell that by a power he manifested at the age of one, this might explain why Pettigrew didn't go after Harry, but not why Snape or these nebulous others didn't - just because someone's Dark doesn't mean they're a Pureblood supremacist, and vice versa. If as a baby the head of ISIS killed the Ku Klux Klan's Grand Imperial Blue Eyes White Dragon or whatever bullshit title their leader has, KKK members wouldn't start becoming radical Islamists. Are we to assume that in the Potterverse, all evil people are naturally on the same side, regardless of their beliefs and reasons for doing evil?
26th Sep '17 2:16:15 PM H.N.Levian
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**** He only ''mentions'' thinking he'd know if the Horcrux was destroyed, but we can ''infer'' that the Horcrux was supposed to do more than that. You have to look at the quote in the context of the situation: the issue was "some of my Horcuxes might be destroyed," so his thought process was "I thought I would know if they were destroyed." That doesn't preclude the possibility that the Horcruxes were supposed to alert him to ''other'' things, too; he's just focussing on the most critical part of the situation. This isn't spelled out in the book, but I don't know that it has to be; we know from the diary, the locket, and the snake that the Horcruxes can communicate with other beings, and we know from the snake that they can communicate with each other at a distance, so I don't think it's a big stretch for Voldemort to think that the pieces of soul would reach out to him if endangered. They didn't, because he misjudged the amount of autonomy the non-living ones had, but he's arrogant enough to have thought that they could have. "Nothing was stopping him from testing it" - um, how do you test "will I know if my Horcrux is destroyed" without ''destroying the Horcrux'', which runs counter to his goals?
26th Sep '17 8:37:27 AM Gess
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** And yet he's humble enough to admit that someone might figure out where the cave in and how to get in. If you allow your enemies ''that'' fest you cannot then deny them something so simple. Also, what does he care if the alarm goes off on him or not if it keeps the thing safe?

to:

** And yet he's humble enough to admit that someone might figure out where the cave in and how to get in. If you allow your enemies ''that'' fest feat you cannot then deny them something so simple. Also, what does he care if the alarm goes off on him or not if it keeps the thing safe?


Added DiffLines:

*** A racoon that is capable of making the blood sacrifice necessary to open the cave? I think that shit warrants some extra attention! "such alarm was useless for a large amount of time" - yes, and?..


Added DiffLines:

*** Doesnt work, that's not what happened with Regulus, they just drowned him.


Added DiffLines:

*** "he thinks the Horcrux itself will alert him to the danger" - No, he doesn't, he only assumes that he would feel if a horcrux is ''destroyed'', which is stupid by itself because nothing was stopping him from testing it. Regardless, why even allow a thief to take it in the first place? Why NOT an intrusion alarm? He could be busy, or distracted - why allow a thief any additional time to escape? "Voldemort captures them for interrogation" - No, he doesn't, because he has no way of knowing what happens in the cave. "and then the Inferi attack" - no, they don't, if the adult prevents the drinker from going for the water and either kills them outright or incapacitates them and carries away.
24th Sep '17 7:15:33 PM H.N.Levian
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** The Inferi ''did'' work for the purpose of ''neutralize the second person'' because, as we saw, Harry ''failed'' to destroy them - they only got out of it because Dumbledore was strong enough to be under the potion's effect and ''still'' be strong enough to conjure fire, something that most thieves would not have been able to do. Similarly, the only reason Regulus and Kreacher weren't completely screwed is that Kreacher, as a house-elf, could dodge the Anti-Apparition wards. In a "normal scenario", the trap works perfectly well. One wizard: makes it halfway through the potion, can't motivate themselves to finish it, languishes uselessly, doesn't have anyone to bring them water, and Voldemort captures them for interrogation. One adult wizard and one "weaker" being (the maximum that can cross via the ferry): either the adult drinks, the "weaker" helps them finish, and then the Inferi dispose of the helper; or the "weaker" drinks, the adult helps them finish, and then the Inferi attack. The adult would destroy the Inferi with fire and take the locket, but remember, Voldemort doesn't realize how disconnected he is from the Horcruxes, so he thinks the Horcrux itself will alert him to the danger. Therefore, the adult escapes the the Inferi, but''then'' Voldemort shows up, interrogates the thief, and kills them. Regulus succeeded because Voldemort didn't plan for house-elf magic, and because Voldemort was ''wrong'' to think that he could still communicate with the rest of his soul - which, considering how hard it was for anyone to learn about Horcuxes in the first place, and considering Voldemort used them in ways that no other wizard had before, isn't an unforgivable mistake to make. Meanwhile, Harry and Dumbledore would have failed if the adult had been literally anyone who wasn't Dumbledore.
24th Sep '17 6:59:20 PM H.N.Levian
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* Dumbledore literally says in the book that the potion can't be scooped out: "But how to reach [the Horcrux]? This potion cannot be '''penetrated by hand''', Vanished, '''parted, scooped up, or siphoned away,''' nor can it be Transfigured, Charmed, or otherwise made to change its nature."
This list shows the last 10 events of 674. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.HarryPotterAndTheHalfBloodPrince