History Headscratchers / HarryPotterAndTheHalfBloodPrince

25th Jun '16 9:01:24 PM Levviathan6
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Maybe Side-Along Apparition was a new Apparition technique that had only recently been innovated? Maybe it wasn't around during the first few books.
7th Jun '16 1:32:18 AM FlashSteps
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Because, as a combat spell it ''must'' be as easily and quickly executable as possible. Like firing a gun. Also, it was created by Severus Snape, pretty much the only adult in that universe who is ''not'' a raging idiot and has a non-wizard upbringing. Stands to reason he understands the notion of effectivenes and perfected the spell accordingly.

to:

** Because, as a combat spell it ''must'' be as easily and quickly executable as possible. Like firing a gun. Also, it was created by Severus Snape, pretty much the only adult in that universe who is ''not'' a raging idiot and has a non-wizard upbringing. Stands to reason he understands the notion of effectivenes effectiveness and perfected the spell accordingly.
7th Jun '16 1:04:22 AM FlashSteps
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The plan to kill DD, of course. I hope you will agree that V ''needed'' to remove him before he could make his grand move. Sure, he expected Draco to fail, (not get killed, who the hell was supposed to kill him, DD?), but messing with Lucius was only an added bonus - the objective to kill DD '''was'' there. Besides, Draco's efforts didn't cost V anything, so he could allow not caring much about them, but a squad of his EltieMooks infiltrating the enemy HQ? No way would a control freak like him take no interest in such an endeavour (neither would they dare to undertake it without his leave, for that matter). Not to mention that Bella had no reasons to "follow Narcissa's whim", when she so clearly despised her for fretting over Draco, and, again, grabbing Potter he moment they see him should've by all means be the standing order for all Death Eaters.
** The naysayers in this argument have good and valid points, but they need to balance their views in the knowledge of the situation and it's context. This was a strike mission to remove the BigGood and therefore set up the end game for conquering the UK. Snape handily does that and proves to all present, not least of all Bellatrix, that he's Voldermort's man through and through. So Snape becomes the de facto leader of the group, making his word law. They are unable to disapparate from Hogwarts grounds. They have Malfoy with them and several of them do have a vested interest in his wellbeing. Bella did ''not'' despise Narcissa or her love for her son, her sister is one of the few she can have anything even like affection and love for. No, she's initially disdainful for her concern for her son and unwillingness for him to give himself up to the cause, but now that Snape did the deed for him, she wants to protect him and get him out of the grounds. And even in this high-profile assassination mission, they don't want to spend a moment longer there than necessary, because of the magical protections, Aurors and Order members who are going to open a can of ass beatings on them for killing Dumbledore. So they need to '''''run like hell'''''. Furthermore, the panic and adrenaline surge they're feeling is mixed in with a sheer evil joy at accomplishing the mission, making them unlikely to make major cognitive decisions on the run and go outside the defined mission parameters. Then, look forward only a few weeks to the first chapter of ''Deathly Hallows'', where Voldemort sets in motion the plan to capture or kill Harry while he's being moved from the Dursleys to the Burrow. He obviously thinks it's safer to abduct the boy there rather than at the castle where you'd have to drag him through it and under attack from all the forces of good. He also clearly enjoys the thrill of the hunt and being able to lead it. Moreover, he's all too aware of the wand problem now, and he needs a substitute before he's ready to engage in the hunt. He surely knew this during the assassination mission against Dumbledore, so he ''very likely didn't want them to bring him Potter, not yet, not before he chose to.'' So this alone means they ''daren#'t'' go against his will. Add up all of these factors and the ones other tropers have mentioned and it becomes totally, utterly, 110% justified as to why they let Harry go free on this occasion.

to:

** The plan to kill DD, of course. I hope you will agree that V ''needed'' to remove him before he could make his grand move. Sure, he expected Draco to fail, (not get killed, who the hell was supposed to kill him, DD?), but messing with Lucius was only an added bonus - the objective to kill DD '''was'' there. Besides, Draco's efforts didn't cost V anything, so he could allow not caring much about them, but a squad of his EltieMooks EliteMooks infiltrating the enemy HQ? No way would a control freak like him take no interest in such an endeavour (neither would they dare to undertake it without his leave, for that matter). Not to mention that Bella had no reasons to "follow Narcissa's whim", when she so clearly despised her for fretting over Draco, and, again, grabbing Potter he moment they see him should've by all means be the standing order for all Death Eaters.
** The naysayers in this argument have good and valid points, but they need to balance their views in the knowledge of the situation and it's context. This was a strike mission to remove the BigGood and therefore set up the end game for conquering the UK. Snape handily does that and proves to all present, not least of all Bellatrix, that he's Voldermort's man through and through. So Snape becomes the de facto leader of the group, making his word law. They are unable to disapparate from Hogwarts grounds. They have Malfoy with them and several of them do have a vested interest in his wellbeing. Bella did ''not'' despise Narcissa or her love for her son, her sister is one of the few she can have anything even like affection and love for. No, she's initially disdainful for her concern for her son and unwillingness for him to give himself up to the cause, but now that Snape did the deed for him, she wants to protect him and get him out of the grounds. And even in this high-profile assassination mission, they don't want to spend a moment longer there than necessary, because of the magical protections, Aurors and Order members who are going to open a can of ass beatings on them for killing Dumbledore. So they need to '''''run like hell'''''. Furthermore, the panic and adrenaline surge they're feeling is mixed in with a sheer evil joy at accomplishing the mission, making them unlikely to make major cognitive decisions on the run and go outside the defined mission parameters. Then, look forward only a few weeks to the first chapter of ''Deathly Hallows'', where Voldemort sets in motion the plan to capture or kill Harry while he's being moved from the Dursleys to the Burrow. He obviously thinks it's safer to abduct the boy there rather than at the castle where you'd have to drag him through it and under attack from all the forces of good. He also clearly enjoys the thrill of the hunt and being able to lead it. He wants the Dursleys' magical protection over Harry to expire once he comes of age, eliminating one more means of shielding for the boy. Moreover, he's all too aware of the wand problem now, and he needs a substitute before he's ready to engage in the hunt. He surely knew all of this during the assassination mission against Dumbledore, so he ''very likely didn't want them to bring him Potter, not yet, not before he chose to.'' So this alone means they ''daren#'t'' ''daren't'' go against his will. Add up all of these factors and the ones other tropers have mentioned and it becomes totally, utterly, 110% justified as to why they let Harry go free on this occasion.
7th Jun '16 1:00:48 AM FlashSteps
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The naysayers in this argument have good and valid points, but they need to balance their views in the knowledge of the situation and it's context. This was a strike mission to remove the BigGood and therefore set up the end game for conquering the UK. Snape handily does that and proves to all, not least Bellatrix, that he's Voldermort's man through and through. They are unable to disapparate from the grounds. They have Malfoy with them and several of them do have a vested interest in his wellbeing. Bella did ''not'' despise Narcissa or her love for her son, her sister is one of the few she can have anything even like affection and love for. No, she's initially disdainful for her concern for her son and unwillingness for him to give himself up to the cause, but

to:

** The naysayers in this argument have good and valid points, but they need to balance their views in the knowledge of the situation and it's context. This was a strike mission to remove the BigGood and therefore set up the end game for conquering the UK. Snape handily does that and proves to all, all present, not least of all Bellatrix, that he's Voldermort's man through and through. So Snape becomes the de facto leader of the group, making his word law. They are unable to disapparate from the Hogwarts grounds. They have Malfoy with them and several of them do have a vested interest in his wellbeing. Bella did ''not'' despise Narcissa or her love for her son, her sister is one of the few she can have anything even like affection and love for. No, she's initially disdainful for her concern for her son and unwillingness for him to give himself up to the cause, but now that Snape did the deed for him, she wants to protect him and get him out of the grounds. And even in this high-profile assassination mission, they don't want to spend a moment longer there than necessary, because of the magical protections, Aurors and Order members who are going to open a can of ass beatings on them for killing Dumbledore. So they need to '''''run like hell'''''. Furthermore, the panic and adrenaline surge they're feeling is mixed in with a sheer evil joy at accomplishing the mission, making them unlikely to make major cognitive decisions on the run and go outside the defined mission parameters. Then, look forward only a few weeks to the first chapter of ''Deathly Hallows'', where Voldemort sets in motion the plan to capture or kill Harry while he's being moved from the Dursleys to the Burrow. He obviously thinks it's safer to abduct the boy there rather than at the castle where you'd have to drag him through it and under attack from all the forces of good. He also clearly enjoys the thrill of the hunt and being able to lead it. Moreover, he's all too aware of the wand problem now, and he needs a substitute before he's ready to engage in the hunt. He surely knew this during the assassination mission against Dumbledore, so he ''very likely didn't want them to bring him Potter, not yet, not before he chose to.'' So this alone means they ''daren#'t'' go against his will. Add up all of these factors and the ones other tropers have mentioned and it becomes totally, utterly, 110% justified as to why they let Harry go free on this occasion.



** Ermmm, the last two answers aren't quite on the money. "His intent to cut off the hand is a nonlethal... use of magic". Nope. Not at all. That kind of injury would cause shock and a MASSIVE amount of blood loss, more than likely enough for the victim to bleed out and die. There's a reason that cutting a hand off is used as punishment in Sharia law countries after all- either the condemned dies outright or they can narrowly staunch the bleeding in time and they live out a pitiful existence without one of his/her primary means of interacting with the tactile world. And the latter outcome is pretty improbable in real life Muggle countries (some of which admittedly aren't at the cutting edge of healthcare) showing that this sort of wound is ''life-threatening'' to begin with. In the wizarding world? This curse causes a never (naturally) healing cut, it's right there in the name. Unless you're a masterclass healer, i.e. the inventor of the curse himself Snape, you won't be able to perform the counter-curse and administer Dittany fast enough. And in the situation in question? That Death Eater was flying a broom at top speed, needed both hands to fly and no ''way'' would he or his friends be able to staunch the wound in time. So sorry guys, but no "yay" for this curse- it's a dangerous weapon and no wonder it comes under dark magic. Even if Snape's intentions in the chase were noble (to protect the innocent), he was still utterly willing to cause a deadly injury.

to:

** Ermmm, the last two answers aren't quite on the money. "His intent to cut off the hand is a nonlethal... use of magic". Nope. Not at all. That kind of injury would cause shock and a MASSIVE amount of blood loss, more than likely enough for the victim to bleed out and die. There's a reason that cutting a hand off is used as punishment in Sharia law countries after all- either the condemned dies outright or they can narrowly staunch the bleeding in time and they live out a pitiful existence without one of his/her primary means of interacting with the tactile world. And the latter outcome is pretty improbable in these real life Muggle countries (some of which admittedly aren't at the cutting edge of healthcare) showing that this sort of wound is ''life-threatening'' to begin with. In the wizarding world? This curse causes a never (naturally) healing cut, it's right there in the name. Unless you're a masterclass healer, i.e. the inventor of the curse himself Snape, you won't be able to perform the counter-curse and administer Dittany fast enough. And in the situation in question? That Death Eater was flying a broom at top speed, needed both hands to fly and no ''way'' would he or his friends be able to staunch the wound in time. So sorry guys, but no "yay" for this curse- it's a dangerous weapon and no wonder it comes under dark magic.the Dark Magic category. Even if Snape's intentions in the chase were noble (to protect the innocent), he was still utterly willing to cause a deadly injury.
7th Jun '16 12:31:47 AM FlashSteps
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The naysayers in this argument have good and valid points, but they need to balance their views in the knowledge of the situation and it's context. This was a strike mission to remove the BigGood and therefore set up the end game for conquering the UK. Snape handily does that and proves to all, not least Bellatrix, that he's Voldermort's man through and through. They are unable to disapparate from the grounds. They have Malfoy with them and several of them do have a vested interest in his wellbeing. Bella did ''not'' despise Narcissa or her love for her son, her sister is one of the few she can have anything even like affection and love for. No, she's initially disdainful for her concern for her son and unwillingness for him to give himself up to the cause, but



** But it still comes down to the intent of the caster, as seems to be the case with all Dark magic. Obviously in a combat situation, it's useful, and his intent to cut off the hand of the other Death Eater is nonlethal (thus not soul-damaging) but perfectly efficient use of magic in a violent situation to protect the Order. It's a war, it's just as moral as any other weapon. However, the common mentality about Dark magic is that it's unequivocally evil and that everyone who uses it is evil, which seems to be part of the problem with the labelling - Rowling shows how that mentality makes it easy for young people like Snape, who doesn't display the same sort of racism that fuels the Death Eater movement, to get sucked into it because he was ostracized for his interest in a topic which isn't innately evil, but which can be used for evil purposes (as most magic probably can). The Death Eaters play on that because it attracts loners that can suddenly feel part of a community that values them and their skills, which is common practice with radical terrorist organizations. I think the characters in the books do tend to confuse TheDarkSide with 'Dark Magic' because of semantic reasons and the fact that Voldemort employs Dark Magic to do his genocide and world domination plots, which is actually pretty realistic. But the fact remains that the use of 'Dark Magic' does not a Death Eater make (Harry uses it a few times, including Unforgivable curses), and the definition of Dark Magic is ambiguous because people don't really understand it anyway and are misled because of it. Snape's interest in Dark Magic has always been one of the biggest reasons he's mistrusted, even though his use of Dark Magic has basically always been beneficial to the Order as a whole, excepting accidental situations.

to:

** But it still comes down to the intent of the caster, as seems to be the case with all Dark magic. Obviously in a combat situation, it's useful, and his intent to cut off the hand of the other Death Eater is a nonlethal (thus not soul-damaging) but perfectly efficient use of magic in a violent situation to protect the Order. It's a war, it's just as moral as any other weapon. However, the common mentality about Dark magic is that it's unequivocally evil and that everyone who uses it is evil, which seems to be part of the problem with the labelling - Rowling shows how that mentality makes it easy for young people like Snape, who doesn't display the same sort of racism that fuels the Death Eater movement, to get sucked into it because he was ostracized for his interest in a topic which isn't innately evil, but which can be used for evil purposes (as most magic probably can). The Death Eaters play on that because it attracts loners that can suddenly feel part of a community that values them and their skills, which is common practice with radical terrorist organizations. I think the characters in the books do tend to confuse TheDarkSide with 'Dark Magic' because of semantic reasons and the fact that Voldemort employs Dark Magic to do his genocide and world domination plots, which is actually pretty realistic. But the fact remains that the use of 'Dark Magic' does not a Death Eater make (Harry uses it a few times, including Unforgivable curses), and the definition of Dark Magic is ambiguous because people don't really understand it anyway and are misled because of it. Snape's interest in Dark Magic has always been one of the biggest reasons he's mistrusted, even though his use of Dark Magic has basically always been beneficial to the Order as a whole, excepting accidental situations.




to:

** Ermmm, the last two answers aren't quite on the money. "His intent to cut off the hand is a nonlethal... use of magic". Nope. Not at all. That kind of injury would cause shock and a MASSIVE amount of blood loss, more than likely enough for the victim to bleed out and die. There's a reason that cutting a hand off is used as punishment in Sharia law countries after all- either the condemned dies outright or they can narrowly staunch the bleeding in time and they live out a pitiful existence without one of his/her primary means of interacting with the tactile world. And the latter outcome is pretty improbable in real life Muggle countries (some of which admittedly aren't at the cutting edge of healthcare) showing that this sort of wound is ''life-threatening'' to begin with. In the wizarding world? This curse causes a never (naturally) healing cut, it's right there in the name. Unless you're a masterclass healer, i.e. the inventor of the curse himself Snape, you won't be able to perform the counter-curse and administer Dittany fast enough. And in the situation in question? That Death Eater was flying a broom at top speed, needed both hands to fly and no ''way'' would he or his friends be able to staunch the wound in time. So sorry guys, but no "yay" for this curse- it's a dangerous weapon and no wonder it comes under dark magic. Even if Snape's intentions in the chase were noble (to protect the innocent), he was still utterly willing to cause a deadly injury.
24th Apr '16 9:07:45 AM QuarrelsomeChevon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* I can understand in the other films, because a lot of the things missing from those were comparatively minor details that could be figured out with a little thinking, like James, Sirius, Remus, and Peter being the Marauders, but why did they choose to leave so much out of this one? Like most of the memories Dumbledore showed Harry in the book? We get sort of a passing mention of Voldemort's mother with the ring, but the entire point of this story was about Harry learning about the person who became Lord Voldemort - the memory from the orphanage is almost entirely pointless without Merope's story to serve as context, and in taking out everything else, the film completely fails to convey the point of ''why'' Voldemort can't feel love or affection, of why Harry even has a chance of beating him, why he's such a wizarding supremacist, where he got a lot of the items he used to make his Horcruxes and why he wanted them...It just doesn't seem right that they wouldn't just film those memories and put them in.

to:

* I can understand in the other films, because a lot of the things missing from those were comparatively minor details that could be figured out with a little thinking, like James, Sirius, Remus, and Peter being the Marauders, but why did they choose to leave so much out of this one? Like most of the memories Dumbledore showed Harry in the book? We get sort of a passing mention of Voldemort's mother with the ring, but the entire point of this story was about Harry learning about the person who became Lord Voldemort - the memory from the orphanage is almost entirely pointless without Merope's story to serve as context, and in taking out everything else, the film completely fails to convey the point of ''why'' Voldemort can't feel love or affection, of why Harry even has a chance of beating him, his constant need to feel special, his feelings towards Hogwarts of being his true home, why he's such a wizarding supremacist, where he got a lot of the items he used to make his Horcruxes and why he wanted them...It just doesn't seem right that they wouldn't just film those memories and put them in.
24th Apr '16 9:06:14 AM QuarrelsomeChevon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* I can understand in the other films, because a lot of the things missing from those were comparatively minor details that could be figured out with a little thinking, like James, Sirius, Remus, and Peter being the Marauders, but why did they choose to leave so much out of this one? Like most of the memories Dumbledore showed Harry in the book? We get sort of a passing mention of Voldemort's mother with the ring, but the entire point of this story was about Harry learning about the person who became Lord Voldemort - the memory from the orphanage is almost entirely pointless without Merope's story to serve as context, and in taking out everything else, the film completely fails to convey the point of ''why'' Voldemort can't feel love or affection, of why Harry even has a chance of beating him, why he's such a wizarding supremacist, where he got a lot of the items he used to make his Horcruxes and why he wanted them...It just doesn't seem right that they wouldn't just film those memories and put them in. The s
[[/folder]]]

to:

* I can understand in the other films, because a lot of the things missing from those were comparatively minor details that could be figured out with a little thinking, like James, Sirius, Remus, and Peter being the Marauders, but why did they choose to leave so much out of this one? Like most of the memories Dumbledore showed Harry in the book? We get sort of a passing mention of Voldemort's mother with the ring, but the entire point of this story was about Harry learning about the person who became Lord Voldemort - the memory from the orphanage is almost entirely pointless without Merope's story to serve as context, and in taking out everything else, the film completely fails to convey the point of ''why'' Voldemort can't feel love or affection, of why Harry even has a chance of beating him, why he's such a wizarding supremacist, where he got a lot of the items he used to make his Horcruxes and why he wanted them...It just doesn't seem right that they wouldn't just film those memories and put them in. The s
[[/folder]]]
in.
[[/folder]]
24th Apr '16 9:05:12 AM QuarrelsomeChevon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* I can understand in the other films, because a lot of the things missing from those were comparatively minor details that could be figured out with a little thinking, like James, Sirius, Remus, and Peter being the Marauders, but why did they choose to leave so much out of this one? Like most of the memories Dumbledore showed Harry in the book? We get sort of a passing mention of Voldemort's mother with the ring, but in taking out his backstory, the film completely fails to convey the point of ''why'' Voldemort can't feel love or affection, of why Harry even has a chance of beating him, why he's such a wizarding supremacist, where he got a lot of the items he used to make his Horcruxes and why he wanted them...It just doesn't seem right that they wouldn't just film those memories and put them in.

to:

* I can understand in the other films, because a lot of the things missing from those were comparatively minor details that could be figured out with a little thinking, like James, Sirius, Remus, and Peter being the Marauders, but why did they choose to leave so much out of this one? Like most of the memories Dumbledore showed Harry in the book? We get sort of a passing mention of Voldemort's mother with the ring, but the entire point of this story was about Harry learning about the person who became Lord Voldemort - the memory from the orphanage is almost entirely pointless without Merope's story to serve as context, and in taking out his backstory, everything else, the film completely fails to convey the point of ''why'' Voldemort can't feel love or affection, of why Harry even has a chance of beating him, why he's such a wizarding supremacist, where he got a lot of the items he used to make his Horcruxes and why he wanted them...It just doesn't seem right that they wouldn't just film those memories and put them in. The s
24th Apr '16 8:22:07 AM QuarrelsomeChevon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* I can understand in the other films, because a lot of the things missing from those were comparatively minor details, like James, Sirius, Remus, and Peter being the Marauders, but why did they choose to leave so much out of this one? Like most of the memories Dumbledore showed Harry in the book? We get sort of a passing mention of Voldemort's mother with the ring, but in taking out his backstory, the film completely fails to convey the point of ''why'' Voldemort can't feel love or affection, of why Harry even has a chance of beating him, why he's such a wizarding supremacist, where he got a lot of the items he used to make his Horcruxes and why he wanted them...It just doesn't seem right that they wouldn't just film those memories and put them in.

to:

* I can understand in the other films, because a lot of the things missing from those were comparatively minor details, details that could be figured out with a little thinking, like James, Sirius, Remus, and Peter being the Marauders, but why did they choose to leave so much out of this one? Like most of the memories Dumbledore showed Harry in the book? We get sort of a passing mention of Voldemort's mother with the ring, but in taking out his backstory, the film completely fails to convey the point of ''why'' Voldemort can't feel love or affection, of why Harry even has a chance of beating him, why he's such a wizarding supremacist, where he got a lot of the items he used to make his Horcruxes and why he wanted them...It just doesn't seem right that they wouldn't just film those memories and put them in.
24th Apr '16 8:19:18 AM QuarrelsomeChevon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[/folder]]

to:

[[/folder]][[/folder]]

[[folder: Why did they cut so much?]]
* I can understand in the other films, because a lot of the things missing from those were comparatively minor details, like James, Sirius, Remus, and Peter being the Marauders, but why did they choose to leave so much out of this one? Like most of the memories Dumbledore showed Harry in the book? We get sort of a passing mention of Voldemort's mother with the ring, but in taking out his backstory, the film completely fails to convey the point of ''why'' Voldemort can't feel love or affection, of why Harry even has a chance of beating him, why he's such a wizarding supremacist, where he got a lot of the items he used to make his Horcruxes and why he wanted them...It just doesn't seem right that they wouldn't just film those memories and put them in.
[[/folder]]]
This list shows the last 10 events of 611. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.HarryPotterAndTheHalfBloodPrince