Follow TV Tropes

Following

Headscratchers / Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Unsorted Examples

Go To

Please check JK's FAQs before asking a question that may have already been answered.

    open/close all folders 
    Talking is a Free Action 
  • 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 Ass Pull) 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?
    • 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.
    • If Dolores Umbridge, a woman who is quite terrible at magic, can react quick enough to shield herself from arrows, Harry Potter can stop bullets.
    • Arrows that she knew were coming at around 60 mph versus bullet that you aren't expecting at 1000 mph. Big difference there.
      • FFS, please learn math. The muzzle velocity of a Glock (which took me, like, a second to look up) is 1230 feet per second. That means when a bullet leaves the muzzle, it is going 1230 feet per second. Convert 1230 feet to miles gives you .23 miles per second. Convert seconds to minutes (by multiplying through with 60 seconds) gives you a muzzle velocity of 12 MILES AN HOUR.
    • Plus, this is the UK. Where the hell would Voldie get his bony mitts on a glock? And even if he could get access to a gun (or, hell, a goddamned knife as that's more abundant than the nearly non-existant guns), he wouldn't use it because that'd be admitting to himself that a filthy muggle weapon was able to do what all his superior magic (remember, he's basially the zombie, magical equivalent of Hitler here) couldn't do. Kill Harry. His pride would not allow him to do it.
    • 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 Power of Love... 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 Ass Pull? 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 Ass Pull 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 Ass Pull, 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 that no less than 3 Avada Kadevras 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?
    • Wait, Voldemort wasn't "killed" at the same time Harry was with the whole train station bit? The book mentions Voldemort getting up from the ground, but let's assume he was just stunned. If he operated like Harry's Horcrux, why didn't he just get up and dust himself off after that first AK rebound? Does the Power of Love just work in reverse of what happened when Harry died, and kill the host instead of its own little inserted fragment?
    • The difference is that Harry was a Horcrux because a piece of Voldemort's soul was "blasted off" and "attached" itself to him, but what Voldemort did when he resurrected himself was to make Harry's blood part of the potion. In other words, the blood and Lily's Power of Love sacrifice were made a part of Voldemort, spread throughout his whole body. Killing Harry destroyed the Horcrux and its piece of soul. But there was no way to get rid of Lily's protection in Voldemort without him dying and staying dead. Or alternatively, when he blasted Harry, Voldemort did die temporarily and lost Lily's protection in the process. Or Harry dying for everyone at Hogwarts transferred the protection from Voldemort to them.
    • It's a pretty obvious Call-Back to the first book. "Even the greatest wizards don't have an ounce of logic."
    • "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 its 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 Phantom of Krankor. And Harry himself is the Prince of Space.
    • And as for him testing a weaker spell on him first, he couldn't do that. At this point, he would rather kill people than simply move around them. He is so accustomed to using AK that he can't think of using any other spell in battle.
    • 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 Evil Overlord List well before this moment, so he wouldn't have a back up weapon when his super powered weapon is declared useless.
    • Even if we weren't told, it would fit exactly with his character to abandon the weaker wand completely in favour of the Elder Wand. The same way as he'd never consider putting pieces of his precious soul into things like tin cans (as Harry suggested), he would never lower himself to carrying around an inferior weapon. He'd also be completely devoid of the sentimental value most wizards place on their original wands (remember, Harry is heartbroken when the phoenix wand is snapped, whereas Voldemort doesn't give a damn about anything that isn't named Voldemort) so he'd see no reason to keep it.
    • 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.
    • Voldemort was a Dead Man Walking for the entirety of that final battle. Harry had him defeated from the moment he was willing to sacrifice his life to Voldemort's Killing Curse in the woods, but Voldemort just hadn't realized it. Remember what Dumbledore told Harry? By sacrificing his life for his friends, he essentially put the same protection spell his mother put on him all those years ago on EVERYONE on his side at Hogwarts. From that moment on NONE of Voldemort's magic worked on anyone. The Avada Kedavra didn't kill Harry. The Crucio his attempted on what he thought was Harry's corpse didn't cause the actually living Harry to even feel a twinge. When he set fire to Neville, Neville wasn't hurt at all. His Yew Wand, even if he had it, would have been no more effective as it had been back when he tried to use it on baby Harry. Thanks to Harry's Power of Love sacrifice, EVERYONE on his side was now permanently IMMUNE to ALL of Voldemort's magic. Voldemort was too arrogant to realize it, but from that moment on, he was doing no damage whatsoever in battle - the only real damage was being inflicted by the other Death Eaters. In terms of combat threat, he might as well have been a Muggle.
    • Although, the reason his Crucio didn't work on Harry is because he was using the Elder Wand, not because Harry was under his own love protection, so Voldemort could at least have killed Harry with his old wand. Of course, after that he would pretty much be totally screwed.
    • Isn't it just a case of Your Mind Makes It Real? Voldemort knows that he would never take on the Awesomest Wizard Ever, but Harry does. Harry then goes on to tell him how he can't win (because the wand doesn't belong to him). Considering that this is "The Boy who Lived", Voldemort starts believing he might lose, thus undermining his confidence prior to the duel. Harry basically pulls a giant "Psych!" on Voldy.
    • Or it's just the opposite: Voldemort's so caught up in the notion that real power means the power to utterly destroy one's enemies that he flat-out doesn't believe Harry's Info Dump. He can't accept that "defeating" someone, by the Elder Wand's standards, can be as simple as knocking a wand from their hand and then leaving them unharmed, so he doesn't believe that Draco's disarming Dumbledore or Harry's disarming Draco could have counted.
      • Except that he knows Grindelwald stole it from Gregorovitch's desk without killing him, and that Dumbledore got it from Grindelwald without killing him.
    • For all Voldemort knows, dropping the Elder Wand and trying to kill Harry with some other weapon is exactly what Harry wants him to do. Harry's whole speech could have been a bluff designed to make Voldemort neglect his most powerful weapon and resort to methods that Harry can more easily counter.

Advertisement:

    Killing Harry 
  • Okay, so I'm guessing that Voldemort killed Snape with Nagini since the Elder Wand wouldn't work (since he thought Snape was the master). But if Harry was the owner, then shouldn't either Harry not been able to be killed in the first place, or, once he was, then shouldn't Voldy have become the master?
    • This is a good point, actually. Voldemort uses the Elder Wand on Harry in the forest when he kills him, and it works. Why the devil is it the wand doesn't consider Voldemort its new master since he just managed to use it to blow away its previous owner? ...Better question. How did the Elder Wand know Harry overpowered Draco to steal his regular wand when it was nowhere near Draco at the time? Logically speaking, that wand should have had no problem blowing Harry back to the phantom version of King's Cross he saw in the forest.
    • Well, did Voldemort look victorious in his direct casting of killing curse on Harry? Even though Voldemort manage to put a killing curse on him, Voldemort was knocked unconscious. No one really won this scenario, and no one was /defeated/ in this scenario so no Elder Wand ownership transfer occurred.
    • Well if Harry wasn't killed wouldn't that last Horcrux not've been destroyed?
    • I personally theorize that the wand may not have transferred ownership BECAUSE Voldemort used it on Harry. both the book itself and JKR's FAQ make it clear that the wand won't work right if used against its current owner; this may well extend to transference rules as well.
    • And even if it would have worked Harry let himself be killed, thus dying undefeated.
    • ^ This. Snape didn't become Elder Wand's true master because Dumbledore allowed himself to be killed. Harry did the same thing in the forest, so he was technically not 'defeated'.
    • We don't really know if mercy killing would count as defeat, since the factor here is that Malfoy defeated DD before Snape offed him. Harry makes a point out of Snape not defeating DD, but the problem here was not if mercy kill counts as victory but who fought and won first. That doesn't invalidate the theory above, though.
    • My personal theory is that the Elder Wand wouldn't harm Harry because he was its true master. That's why Hary didn't die from the Killing Curse in the woods. However, it found that there was something that it could kill: a hunk of soul from someone else that was just hanging around. Harry ended up at King's Cross Station because he accidently hitch-hiked along with Voldie's soul into Limbo. Since he wasn't actually dead, he was given the choice of staying or going back. As for the final battle, the book says that the Killing Curse rebounded off of Harry. If both spells hit at the same time, then Voldie got disarmed just as the Killing Curse started it's 180, meaning that he was defenseless to do anything about the Killing Curse coming right at what's left of his face. Why did it rebound? Because by never having disarmed Harry, Voldie wasn't 'worthy' of using the Elder Wand, so it refused to act against it's true master once again.

     Hogwarts and the Ministry 
  • Other than the Default Answer, 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 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)?
      • With regard to the weapons, it's a myth that merely owning a weapon means you can't be oppressed. Just look at a lot of regimes across Africa and the Middle East where gun control is "do you have the money?" and have some of the worst regimes on the planet. It's really difficult getting ordinary people to use weapons against other people, even in live or death situations. Armies spend a lot of time, money, and effort physically and psychologically breaking that mindset in their recruits. And even then it isn't that successful, most trained soldiers still have enormous difficulty firing on other human beings. Add into that wizards are taught, almost as soon as they get it, that their wand is a tool, most would never think of it as a weapon.
    • Believe me when I say people under oppressive regimes are are reluctant to rise due to many reasons other than weapons. I come from one. Yet we call ourselves a democracy. We have known child rapists and murderers in the government. They manipulate and intimidate law and court system. But people are used to it. Most people hate them. But it doesn't make anyone stand up against them because they don't want to be adversely affected, and they aren't sure that even if they do stand up, others will rise up with them to get rid of the oppressors. The government controls the state media. Half the population believes the lies they spout out. Some people support the regime because they and their families benefit from it. People are scared of more things than outright death. People fear losing jobs or not getting a good one. We fear other subtle retribution. They don't want to risk our families. It is harder to stand up against a regime which makes a mockery out of democracy than an outright killing rampage. In short, wizarding community is totally believable to me. I see it every day. If I had a gun, I won't use it one the random chance of getting past their security. They, after all, control the the security forces of the country. Even if I do manage to kill one, it's effectively the ruin of my family. Rowling's representation of wizards is very accurate as I see. But I do get that most people from places without that sort of thing will not get that mentality.
      • 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 that 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 each 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).
      • One effective way I can think of to get people to accept the Death Eaters would be for Thicknesse to announce that anyone who defected would be given amnesty and a Ministry position. A liberal amount of "defections" later and the Death Eaters are in control of the Ministry and the statue gets built.
    • 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 Adults Are Useless 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 Ministry 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 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 renowned 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 that 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 was needed, there's the draft. And the Geneva Convention makes distinctions between combatants and civilians and how they are treated.
      • Like the Nazis in the 30s, oppressive regimes rely on the fact that most people won't actively resist and they concentrate their efforts on the hard core that do until the reign of terror is well established. "First they came for the communists and I did not speak out, because I was not a communist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade Unionist.... Then they came for me. And there was no one to speak up for me," is probably just as true for the wizarding world as it was for Germany.
      • Yes, but the Nazis also came to power because a lot of the people were buying what they were selling. They would never have lasted as long as they did if, at minimum, the majority of the army wasn't willing to obey the orders coming down. A lot of the population of 1930s Germany wanted Germany to be a strong national power again and get out of the Weimar-era depression and were willing to back anybody who looked like they could pull it off. Making the same analogy re: Magical Britain leaves Magical Britain looking really really bad.
      • And along that line, consider that the Department of Magical Law Enforcement apparently has no equivalent of the "illegal orders doctrine" used by most Western militaries, seeing as how there is nothing in canon to indicate that the already-existing Aurors on duty either resigned en masse or bugged out to form their own Resistance Army and had to all be replaced by Death Eaters. Nope. Yaxley gets made their new boss and they get sent out to drag Muggleborns in for Umbridge's show trials and the Aurors actually do it. If somebody Imperio'ed the US President tomorrow and had him issue orders to the federal law enforcement agencies and the military to start rounding up all people of [insert whatever ethnic background here] for concentration camps, the best-case scenario he could hope for was impeachment. Worst-case, it starts the Second American Civil War. But everybody just snapping to and going 'Hokey-dokey boss, ethnic cleansing it is!'? Not happening.
      • Except for that one time that it totally did happen... [1]
      • 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's supposedly progressive leadership. This is not the sort of thinking that results in a population that is inclined to defend itself. (And just to ice the cake, the "historical witch burnings didn't kill any witches" was later retcon'd to be total bullshit; hundreds of wizards were killed by the inquisitors).
      • 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.
      • "To make things like guns..." Wizards don't care to make things like guns. Wizards don't need to know these things because magic accomplishes for them what math and science accomplish for us. You're assuming that the things that signify progress in our world would also signify progress for wizards; they don't. Even between different real-world cultures, there are plenty of practices that one culture might consider absolutely necessary for a modern society that another might consider superfluous.
      • 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.
      • And on the point of the Inferi being created by Dark magic, how often in Real Life have people let their governments get away with immoral things for the greater good? If it's possible for the wizards burying their heads in the sand to convince themselves that it's all part of the Ministry's efforts against Voldemort, then they probably will.
    • 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.
    • The one who said "wizards sticking their heads in the sand" is closest to correct. The way the book portrayed, it was that Voldemort's rule was so accepted because no-one really knew whether or not it was really him in control, and no-one particularly wanted to know, as that would get them in trouble. If he had openly seized power all at once, there would have been rebellion, but he did not. Actually, his finesse in the matter reminds me of Palpatine and the whole Clone Wars bit. Only the Order knew definitively that the Ministry had fallen, and they didn't move because many of them were still in the Ministry, and could work from the inside out, but most of the citizenry just wanted everything to be okay and move about their business without getting rounded up.
      • Keep in mind that Voldemort wasn't the Minister of Magic. Pius Thicknesse was. Officially, Voldemort was still an enemy of the state, though the fact that the government was suddenly following his philosophy was probably a dead giveaway. Even so, Voldemort controls the Daily Prophet (most wizards' source of news) AND the Quibbler (the primary opposition), so he can keep his activities relatively secretive. Yaxly might have kept on Arthur Weasley to keep some semblance of normalcy. This also explains why no international support came in; as far as wizard France or America is concerned, everything is under control in Britain. That and the bystander effect explain the lack of public uprising. It doesn't help that the Ministry's new official opinion on blood purity is somewhat popular even among some non-Death Eater groups or that a killing-curse-spewing Death Eater is scary to face even as a trainer Auror, let alone someone who got their only combat training from a pamphlet.
  • 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 Muggle-borns (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.
      • Umbridge may be willing to use Dark spells when she deems it necessary, but she's not a Dark witch. She was the second-in-command of the Minister of Magic - a rather respectable position - and at the time of Umbridge's reign in Hogwarts, Voldemort was not in control of the Ministry. So, comparing the situation under Umbridge to the situation under Voldemort is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
      • Um no its not comparing apples to oranges... since she was on Voldy's side in book 7. Who was it that was in charge of the "Muggle-Born Registration Committee"?
      • I think it is more a question of unquestioning loyalty to the government, regardless of who runs it. Remember, there is such a thing as collaborators.
      • If worth something, Word of God says Umbridge was never a Death Eater.

    Voldemort and Harry's mind connection 

  • If Voldemort could enter Harry's mind and vice versa, what was to stop him from finding out that Harry was hunting Horcruxes? Also, Nagini (in Bathilda's body) saw the locket around Harry's neck at least in The Movie, why didn't she inform her master of it?
    • Well, according to DD, when V'd tried to take full possession of Harry in the end of "Order", it caused him so much pain that he would never ever use the connection again, even to simply spy on him, or read his mind or create illusions, none of which was apparently painful at all... yeah...
      • Well, Voldemort might have decided to stop because he figured that Harry now had a weapon he didn't have before. He might believe that Harry only needed to learn about it to start using it routinely.
    • With Nagini it's a bit more explainable. She would need to know of the locket's significance to bother telling about it, but there's really no reason for V to share that information with her. That and we don't even know what her senses are, and if she can make out such fine details.
      • Except that Nagini was a Horcrux herself, so she should've been able to sense or otherwise identify the locket as one too.
      • This line of thought raises two questions: a) Is Nagini sentient? can she really have that complex thinking? and b) Do horcruxes recognize each other? because Harry himself is one and I don't remember him recognicing horcrux when he doesn't know they are such, like the dairy.
      • He does starts "hearing" other horcruxes in "Hallows" because the filmmakers realised that by cutting out all the DD's memory lessons in HBP, there've left Harry with no concievable way of knowing what he's looking for. Of course, demanding that they take into account the events of 5 movies (and several directors) prior would be pointless.

    Muggle-born children 

  • 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 gets done 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.
    • Why the wizards don't leave? I mean, they are being accused and incarcerated, so why they don't leave magical Britannia? They can apparate or use Floo powder or dozens of travel mediums and the entire Death Eater power base is just in the isles, so what stopped them from go abroad? Or better yet, flee to the Muggle word. Just like Slughorn shows, they could easily charm new proprieties, steal food and money, and above all else, it is a very big place to hide. Instead, they ended up like hobos and tramps (if they where lucky) in a Fascist regiment. Are wizards really that stupid? Even the Muggleborn side?
    • Probably many of them did leave the country, there were a lot of students going to Hogwarts after all. There's the possibility that they couldn't leave because the Death Eaters were controlling the magical transportation through and from Britain(not sure if it's canon, but it sounds right), and that threats like 'register yourself or your entire family gets it' were all sprung on the Muggleborns before they could consider leaving the country through muggle means (Heck, maybe some death eaters shot down aeroplanes etc) Also perhaps it didn't start out as 'you are a muggle you must die' more like 'please come to the ministry so we can check your files' so the muggleborns would come willingly.
    • As Muggleborns and half-bloods, many of them probably had Muggle relatives whom they got along with better than Harry got on with his. The Death Eaters were already abusing Muggles who were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time; why wouldn't they make veiled (or not-so-veiled) threats against the non-wizarding relatives of Muggleborns who failed to comply?
    • The ones that left the country seem to have done so before everything kicked off. And the theory about Death Eaters controlling the transport seems spot on. For one in earlier books, the Ministry had to organise foreign witches and wizards arriving in the UK for the World Cup. So unless the fleeing wizard owned a broomstick, they'd actually be limited as to how far they could go. I'm sure I read somewhere that there's a distance limit for apparating. So that pretty much leaves only Muggle methods of transport - and they'd need passports to leave the country.

    Voldemort vs Harry in the forest 

  • 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. 'Mort's 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" an "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.
    • Objection! Point of order, Harry was not the rightful owner of the Resurrection Stone. That was lawfully Voldemort's, since he was the only heir of Marvolo Gaunt once Morfin died. The ring in which the Stone was set had been part of the Gaunt family up until the time that Dumbledore took it from where Voldemort hid it in the Gaunt shack.
    • 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 them 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 leash 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 Batman 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 Manipulative Bastard he is, fed Snape the information that would drive Harry to sacrifice himself. Granted, 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.
    • Well Voldemort hadn't even been resurrected yet until then, so any plan Dumbledore might have had would have been very rough.
    • Dumbledore did not start to plan until Voldy returned.
    • There is a small detail that you don't consider. Harry did not survive because he was the Master of Death, because it is explicitely stated that being the Master of Death is not someone who can resist it, but oon the very contrary the less flashy and more mundane someone who don't fear it and can embrace it given the circumstances, exactly as Harry did sacrifying himself. It is also explained that Harry survived by having his blood in Voldemort that kept his protection active and anchored him to life, while his Horcrux had not.

Advertisement:

    Wearing the locket 

  • Why, oh why, why on earth did they decide that they needed to wear that 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.)
    • This might also explain why Dumbledore decided the potion in the cave had to be drunk. Also (even though these have perfectly reasonable character-based reasons)) it could also add a second layer of explanation to Ginny trusting the diary and Dumbledore putting on the ring. It doesn't have a strictly solid textual basis, but it's entirely plausible that it was standard practice for Voldemort to guard his Horcruxes with mind-clouding magical effects in addition to the tangible protections around them.
    • 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 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 have 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: Plot Inducedstupidity.
    • I agree that it was very stupid. There's a line when they get the cup of Hufflepuff and one them (I think Hermione) says "Well, at least we don't have to wear this one", and kept it in their bag. Which means that they're fine with keeping a Horcrux in their bag if forced to, so it would've been much much safer to not wear the locket. Also, Hagrid had given Harry a mokeskin pouch, and no one but the owner of the pouch could take anything out of it. So that would've been the perfect place to put the locket, but Harry seems to have been holding an Idiot Ball and promptly forgot about the pouch seconds after obtaining it.
    • Wouldn't having it in the pouch exert the same effect? This is Voldemort's soul we're talking about.
    • It does seem that using a Horcrux the way a Muggle uses it, i.e. writing in the diary, putting the ring on your finger, or wearing the locket, activates the Horcrux's effects.
    • That depends on how extension charms and such work in Ms. Rowling's world. We don't know enough about them beyond them being relatively common.
    • Chalk it up to Harry being Crazy-Prepared. Look at how they went on the run in the first place. Interrupted at a wedding and if Hermione hadn't packed her bag beforehand, they would have been stuck with nothing. And just as easily, they'd lost the safety of Grimmauld Place. So they could just as easily become separated from their belongings and lose the Horcrux. Wearing the thing was dangerous yes, but reasonable.

    Fiendfyre 

  • 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 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 meltingnote .
    • You know, they never stated the fire dies out. Maybe, it it goes uninterrupted, it could burn down an entire desert? Subtle.
    • 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.
    • Why not the 'Hut-on-the-Rock'? Harry's been there before, and no one would miss the ramshackle shack.
    • 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.

    Legally getting out of punishment 

  • How do the Malfoys, who used Unforgivable Curses multiple times each, "weasel their way" 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.
      • If you think Voldemort wouldn't find it amusing to have Nagini eat Harry if his magic still wasn't working against the kid, you missed that whole scene with the basilisk in book two.
    • 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.
      • Wasn’t Draco underage during the commission of his crimes? Is possible that, like in the muggle world, juvenile delinquents are treated differently and given lesser sentences and/or no jail time at all. Besides Draco didn’t committed any real crime (only things like vandalism and a very poorly executed attempted murder that can be easily excused as a teenager under pressure from the leader of a terrorist organization), unlike his father.
    • Expeliarmus isn't a counterspell. It's a disarming spell, causing whatever was in a persons hand to fly out of it. AK was already launched and it hit Harry to no effect.
    • 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 have 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 successful 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 committee involved. Plus heroes are kinda obligated to be heroic and gracious in victory, vengeance and punishment is for villains in the Potter-verse.
    • Word of God via Pottermore is that Lucius avoided being imprisoned because he "provided evidence against other Death Eaters and helped ensure the capture of many of Lord Voldemort's followers who had fled into hiding."
    • There's also the fact that Harry knew that Draco had been groomed personally to kill Dumbledore - a mission that would have resulted in his death if he failed. So he knew that the Malfoys had good reason to be acting mainly out of fear. Even Lucius returning to the Death Eaters after Voldemort was resurrected could have been motivated by fear for his family. Since the last war ended with as many people as possible being thrown in prison just to keep the public happy, it's likely the new government was trying to learn from past mistakes. And being sympathetic to people who were in a grey area is a good way to start.

    Bag of holding 

  • Harry Potter's just a bit too fond of the Idiot Ball 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 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 Lampshade Hanging 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 Sirius 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 Idiot Ball. 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.
    • That makes sense. Ginny said that she knew better than to confide in anything like a magical journal that talked to you, but she did to the point that she almost had her soul drained to power a resurrection spell. Dumbledore himself said that he was overpowered by an urge to put on the ring, which he knew had to have a lethal defense installed in it. Could this be why Harry acts like a suicidal dumbass so much in the first books; his Horcrux is actively driving him to take steps that could kill him?
    • That... is actually an awesome explantion, all things considered. Since the horcrux was created unintentionally and at the moment when V's greatest desire was to kill the kid, instead of protecting its "vessel" the soul fragment went on to fulfil that desire. Of course, that makes DD that much bigger an asshole for providing it with ample opportunities to do so and.

    Muggle-borns kicked out 

  • 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 would 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 Britain 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?

Advertisement:

    Brainwashing 

  • 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 La Résistance 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 against Hogwarts.
    • He tried to do that, definitely. 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).

    Further brainwashing 

  • 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 teachers 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 Grimmauld 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. Hagrid's is part of the order AND is a teacher as well.
    • 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 awkward 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 McGonagall 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 trace 

  • The giant Ass Pull 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.
    • Word of God 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 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire when Arthur reverses the Engorgement Charm on Dudley's tongue? Or when Tonks magically packs Harry's trunk and cleans Hedwig's cage in Goblet of Fire? 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.
    • That makes sense in Goblet of Fire, but it doesn't make as much sense in OotP, since the Order were working mostly without Ministry knowledge/consent, so presumably someone in the Ministry would have been very interested to know what 'official business' Tonks was getting up to in the home of Harry Potter, whom the whole Ministry was against.
    • It might be that anyone can submit forms to the Improper Use of Magic Office to notify them of potential magic near an underage wizard. There are probably plenty of cases where Muggleborn children travel with the families of half-blood or pureblood friends, or underage kids are taking the Knight Bus and don't want to be unfairly charged with magic cast by other passengers, or stuff like that, and there must be some way of dealing with that. The specifics are up in the air, but it's entirely possible there's a process someone could've used to do something through the Ministry without tapping any actual Ministry connections.
    • It's instructive to note that in GoF Arthur Weasley is perfectly content to do magic inside the house, but in OotP the Order members guarding the place are careful to stay on the street or in the adjacent yard and off the grounds of #4 Privet Drive proper. Apparently they do know the maximum range at which the Trace can pick up a reading, and are deliberately staying outside of it.
    • It's also possible that someone in the government did have some sense and turned off the alarms on Harry. (If not the actual Trace.) It's also possible they did send him some warnings afterwards, which never made it to him because of the protection around him, or the Weasley adults just discarded. (Or maybe the warnings went to the Dursley's, oops.)
    • 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 likely 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).
    • We don't even know that Tom actually kills the Riddles, besides what Voldemort tells us. This troper remembers seeing an alternate scenario in a fanfic where Tom walks in to the Gaunt house and knocks Morfin out with a frying pan. Morfin wakes up, sees that his ring is gone and vaguely remembers someone who looks like the Riddles across the street coming in...
    • Actually, at least in Order of the Phoenix, the Trace tells the Ministry that magic has been performed in the vicinity of an underage wizard. Madame Bones made it a point to state that Harry was the only known wizard living in Little Whinging (brought up because of Mrs Figg, who said she lived near him, and she had to elaborate that she was a Squib and thus didn't show up in the registry). This is also why children from magical families are trusted to control their child's use of magic, because the Ministry wouldn't be able to tell just who had used magic, which is why Fred and George get away with using magic over summers without Ministry notices (Otherwise, they probably would've been expelled a dozen times over). Besides, Ron quickly points out that Harry can't still have the Trace, being seventeen—the point of concern for them is that the Death Eaters might have somehow changed the way the Trace works, in order for them to more easily locate Harry, perhaps even to the point of being able to tell exactly who had used magic. As it turned out, however, it wasn't the Trace at all that allowed the D Es to find Harry, it was because he said 'Voldemort', which had been made Taboo by that point. (Which was really very smart on Voldy's part, considering the only people shown to not be afraid of Vodemort's name are Dumbledore (who's dead), Harry, and perhaps certain very high up Order members.)
  • Okay, am I the only who is seriously concerned by the fact that the ministry of magic has the ability to track when and where people are using magic? Big Brother, anyone?
  • I'll be concern if they didn't.

    Hedwig 

  • 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. She dies trying to protect Harry.
    • One of the few things, in my mind, that the movie ever did better than the book; making Hedwig one more on the long list of those who'd died to protect him.

    Regulus's sacrifice 

  • 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 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 horcrux?
    • Because Regulus joined the Death Eaters more out of spite than really believing in their Pureblood supremacy BS, and he 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 Moral Event Horizon.
    • 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.
    • He would have realized his horcrux had been tampered with if he had not made so many. "RAB" himself may not have known there were that many horcruxes or may not have known of that drawback to making six.
    • I wonder why Regulus didn't just burn through the potion and the horcrux and the inferi with fiendfyre. If Crabbe -not exactly a stellar student- could cast the fiendfyre spell, if not control it, then Regulus could cast it too. I won't be so arrogant to say he would be able to control it or anything, but he could have went inside the cave, cast it inside the cavern and aimed it at the horcrux island, and then apparated away with Kreacher. He could even have sent Dumbledore or another order member a covert message about there being a fire in this cave, and that it's important Voldemort doesn't find out. Dumbledore would have shown up, put out the fiendfyre (I reckon he's capable of that), and then done some fishing to find out the why the cave was important. Maybe he would figure out that it was the cave Riddle traumatized kiddies in, and othered protection to Regulus or something. I get that I've not laid out a perfect plan, but it has some merit to it, and if Regulus thought it through and considered things carefully, he could have figured out something. I mean he knew what horcruxes were, because he recognized one. It stands to reason he knew how to destroy one, and that he could cast fiendfyre (the Carrows could, and they aren't described as all too skilled). He was capable of something other than what he did.
    • Regulus probably thought that the locket would be protected by a poison of some kind, and gave Kreacher orders ahead of time in the likely event of him dying in the process of retrieving the locket. When he was alive but drastically weakened after drinking it, he knew that Voldemort was on the way and was probably unable to countermand his previous order before A) Kreacher left and B) Voldemort arrived to deal with him.
    • Crabbe had just spent an entire school year studying the Dark Arts, something that neither Hermione nor, so far as we are aware, Regulus ever did. Maybe they never learned how to cast it?

    Memory charm 

  • 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 Goblet of Fire? 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 "recognized 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".
    • Foaly from Artemis Fowl explains, basically, you brain is very good at completing the gaps and will make up stuff to compensate. Memory is extremely malleable, after all.
    • 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 and would to subscribe to your newsletter. Could you elaborate?
    • Hermione lying because her parents were killed? For real? Sorry for being rude, but in which extravagant fanfic did you found such far-fetched drivel?? Hermione would flat-out lie to her best friends coldy without expressing the slightest trace of shock and grief? No, just no.

    Weasley clock and death 

  • 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?
    • A particularly heartbreaking mini-fanfic has this speculation: "But there was one hand that stood on its own. It was separate from all the others, pointing to one word. Lost."
    • ... "Traveling."
    • I like to think that Fred's hand would just point to where his body was. And you can't be in "mortal peril" if you're already deceased.

    Hermione's parents 

  • Did Hermione's parents ever get de-brainwashed? Were they ever confirmed as back in Great Britain or still in Australia, or were they 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 Word of God comes out about it we don't know.
    • 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 book series would've been twice as long.
    • I'm sure they would. But if she considers these thngs she introduces to be important enough to clarify and make sure people know how they were resolved in interviews, then surely they are important enough to be in the book. Lesson of the day? Only introduce stuff you will provide a payoff for.
    • 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.
    • Still, people have different tastes and ideas. J.K tries to include resolving of sub-plots, and some will complain about the unnecessary infodump (I know I would)
    • 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 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.
    • Yes, more Word of God stuff. I don't get why it bothers you to be honest. Rowling explicitely stated in her additional info that Hermione went to Australia find her parents and give them back their real memories after the war. Why did she not tell it? Well, because the story(before the epilogue) ends right after the Final Battle, for once, and that the book was already long enough.
      • "I don't get why it bothers you to be honest" I made it pretty obvious in my original post (years ago now). Rowling felt there were many things that needed to be explained - peoples backstories, motivations, what actiually hapened etc and made sure these were communicated through multiple interviews and on Pottermore. Personally I think if the author considers these things important enough that people have to know them,, which she clearly does, then they should be in the book rather than addressed later in supplemntary materials. The Hermione thing in and of itself doesnt bother me, it was the straw that broke teh camels back on reading "word of god" explanations. Frankly anyone who thought Hermione wouldnt, as soon as the war was over and voldemort defetaed, go straight to australia find her parents and restore their memories is an idiot.

    Wizard nobles 
  • In 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 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.
    • Pottermore has answered this troper's question: In the early 1930s (just as Tom Riddle was entering the Wizarding world), an anonymous author published a directory purporting to identify the most distinguished pureblood families in the British Isles. The Longbottoms were among the "Sacred Twenty-Eight" families.
    • Royal is higher than noble in the medieval European food chain. One has divine right, the other are just blue bloods.

    Firebolt 

  • 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.

    Summoning food 

  • 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 Bag of Holding?
    • This troper always assumed that they did, but Hermione unpacked it at Grimmauld 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.
    • Not to mention that if the choices are 'cheeseburgers for every meal' and 'go hungry', bring on the cheeseburgers! Look, I'm living in a tent in the woods while an enemy army is out searching for my ass. If I've got to have the same Happy Meal breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day, I'll still be happy just to not be having to put up with MREs.
    • After a couple of days boiling stones for soup stock and gnawing on sticks, even MREs will start to taste good. Odds are that Hermione packed a stock of food stuffs, but they ran out over time. Remember, they were camping for most of a year. There was only so much food she could get her hands on while at the Burrow, and only so much of it has a shelf life of forever. Even if she started stocking up before that, it's unlikely she would have been able to get ahold of a year's worth of military rations or some other long-term food supply on the income of a 17 year old girl.
    • Of course, we're still stuck with the objection that even after the Trio are hungry enough to start resorting to theft (witness them 'borrowing' those pies from that farmhouse or whatnot), they still don't remotely take advantage of their opportunities. Once I've decided I'm hungry enough to steal food, I'm going to apparate into the middle of a supermarket at 3am and start emptying shelves into my Bottomless Bag. If I run into any staff members doing an overnight stocktake... Stupefy. Obliviate.
    • Why steal? Enter a grocery store disguised using Polyjuice potion. Fill a cart with food suitable for camping. Use magic to double the amount. Aparate away with the "new" food. No theft, and very nearly no risk. And if they buy food that will keep, they can just keep duplicating the food indefinitely.
      • Polyjuice potion takes a month to be made and according to Rowling, wizards can't duplicate food magically, nor food nor money.
      • They have a supply of polyjuice potion. They use it in the ministry/godric's hollow/gringotts before running out. And they can't conjure food from nothing but that explicitly make more/duplicate food they already have.

    Unforgivables 

  • 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 What the Hell, Hero? 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. McGonagall 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.
    • Imperio was needed to get into Gringotts. Crucio didn't have any real purpose and it doesn't get the excuse of "desperate times call for desperate measures". I get that Harry was angry at Amycus, and that the latter had been torturing students and spat at McGonagall, but if you can't expect the heroes to behave differently, what makes the difference between the heroes and those they fight? This isn't a simple "flawed" moment-it's torture. Cruciatus requires you to want to torment, and it's Harry who does that, I can see why people wanted to see a paragraph of reflection or a What the Hell, Hero?.
    • Maybe Rowling doesn’t think Viewers Are Morons and expects the reader to meditated about the issue without having to spell it out herself?
    • While I agree that Harry should be considering what he did to Amycus, the change in attitude toward the Unforgivable Curses is easily explained. Shooting at people is very much frowned upon in modern society, but it not merely accepted but expected in a war. And there is no evidence that anybody except Bellatrix herself ever knew about the Cruciatus curse during the Ministry break-in.

    Room of requirement and Diadem 

  • 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.
    • This is another thing. How can you stumble upon a room that requires you to walk past it three time thinking about what exactly do you need, before the door even appears? What are the odds of that happening by chance?
    • Simple, Take a student walking around the Seventh Floor, have them either wander aimlessly or just pacing back and forth while they reflect stuff, perhaps absentmindedly thinking about a need, then seeing a random door you haven't seen before. How many students go to Hogwarts?
    • I've always thought that everyone has misunderstood the 'Room of Lost Things'. Voldemort didn't hide anything there at all, the same way that no one carted the broken vanishing cabinet back there. The 'Room of Lost Things' is just where real things go that you leave in the Room of Requirement, in any configuration it's in. You leave a book in the DA room, and turn off the room, it's in the Room of Lost Things, at least until you bring the DA room back. And we know the House Elves use it as a disposal, so most of the stuff in the 'Room of Lost Things' was just left there. What Room Voldemort thought he was leaving it is is an interesting question, perhaps he though the he found the Secret Throne Room for the Heir of Slytherin or something and left the Diadem there. (What might be a hilarious idea is that he left it somewhere else, the House Elves found it, and threw it away.)
    • I've always thought that the diadem was never hidden in the Room of Requirement in the first place. Harry wanted ''The room where everything was hidden". My interpretation is that everything that had ever been hidden in Hogwarts, including the diadem, appeared there. Which brings us to the question: Why didn't Harry just ask for the room with the diadem in it so he wouldn't have to do any searching.
    • *Sigh* Because he's an idiot.
    • Or, you know, because he had remembered seeing the diadem before, when he hid his Potions book - he had used it to put on top of the wig so that he would find the Potions book again - so naturally he wanted to get back into the same room where he had seen it before. And he didn't exactly have a lot of time to come up with an alternative way of wording his request so that the room would only show the diamond.
    • Right. "I need a room that has in it only the diadem that I put on the wig last year, when I was inside." Yeah, that would've taken a lot more time than searching for the thing.
    • There is a 20 to fifty year gap between Voldemort being in school and Harry Potter being in school, depending on just when the diadem was hidden. It's possible the room was not quite so packed when Riddle went in.
    • It's actually mentioned in the book itself, when the trio enters the Room of Requirement. "Look at all this stuff! Did Voldemort REALLY think he was the only one to have found this room?"
    • Actually, you have that backwards. Harry just assumed that Voldemort was so arrogant that he would believe that he was the only one to find the Room of Hidden Things. He didn't question it, not really. And there is no evidence whatsoever that he was right as to Voldemort's thinking. The best answer I can find is "Harry is stressed, and makes a stupid assumption about what Lord Voldemort would have thought".
    • Not really, Harry get inside Voldemort's head via their connection and he literally thinks that the school is the safest because no-one else knew the castle as well as or knew about the hiding spot. The exact quote from page 444 in my copy of DH is: "As for the School: he alone knew where in Hogwarts he had stowed the Horcrux, becase he alone had plumbed the deepest secrets of that place..." It's not an assumption on Harry's part; Voldemort really is that arrogant.
    • It may be that Harry got the idea from that, and perhaps he was right. But what sort of arrogance would allow a man to hid his most private possession in a room containing *thousands* of things others had put there, while believing nobody else ever found the room? That's like standing on the corner of Hollywood and Vine and believing that you are the only human who has ever been here. If true, it is downright ridiculous, though that isn't the only ridiculous thing in these stories. I prefer to assume (and I'll admit it might be wishful thinking) that Voldemort simply meant that nobody could ever figure it out, not that nobody else ever found the room.

    Ghost 

  • 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.

    Sword 

  • 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, 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 The Mole 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.
    • Snape does have a Pensieve. Possibly he stripped any thoughts that would betray his status as The Mole from his mind before any face-to-face meeting with Voldemort, causing himself to genuinely think he was loyal to the Death Eaters until he returned to his office and re-installed those extracted thoughts and memories.
    • 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.

    Fangs 

  • 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 stored in the fang when it died. It was probably easier just to have the sword passed on in secret.

    Time limit 

  • 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.
    • Didn't he do this specifically to ferret out Harry's (and in the first war, Dumbledore's) whereabouts? Only a small handful of people had the balls to use the name after all, and I'm sure it had to have worked to raid wherever the old Order headquarters were located.

    Voice 

  • 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 Crabbe's voice (I forget which) before they were all in the Room of Requirement during the battle of Hogwarts.
    • That was just Lampshade Hanging 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.
    • It's possible that the Trio hearing being able to speak in their own voices during the use of Polyjuice potion in the movies is just so we don't get confused about who's who. Perhaps to everyone else their voices sound like those they are portraying, such as with Crouch Jr. impersonating Moody in the fourth film.
    • Two points with the voices. Firstly, the Polyjuice incident happened when Crabbe was twelve or thirteen, and he is now seventeen or eighteen. Voices do change during that time. Secondly, your speech isn't just about the sound your larynx produces; you do have some choice in the matter: being a slow talker versus a fast talker, or, in Crabbe's case, speaking very loudly versus very softly.

    Trusting Snape 

  • 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 Dumbledore asked him to. Snape was a good guy after all.
    • ... Which has no bearing on their point. They meant that in Voldemort's POV, Snape proved his loyalty by killing Dumbledore. We know better, and that's why he's referred to as a triple agent rather than a double agent, as the poster above pointed out.
    • Snape probably used occlumency to REDIRECT, not outright block, Voldemort's legilimency to memories which corroborated his reports. Voldemort probably never realized that Snape was hiding important things from him. Dumbledore did not say that falsifying memories was always obvious. He said that it was fortunate that Slughorn botched his memory patching, because it made it obvious that the memory was tweaked, and that the real one remained. This implicitely suggests that it IS possible to cover near perfectly a memory. Dumbledore revealed that he had to work very hard and look very deep into Morfin's memory to extract his memories of having met Riddle Jr, and that was done by a 16 yo Voldemort. As long, as Snape's stories were consistent with his memories to Voldemort, he would not have felt the need to spent countless hours exploring his mind, especially as Voldemort admitted that this might damage the mind beyond recovery.

    Protecting Horcruxes 

  • 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?
    • The locket was one of his first Horcruxes, so he was still worried about keeping it as secure as possible. Once he had five of the things, each became comparatively less valuable, because the odds of anyone finding all of them were so low.
  • The horcruxes were supposed to be their own alarm system. They lose that feature as more of them are made, something he did not realized until too late.

    Secret Keeper 

  • 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.
    • Which doesn't explain how anyone can see Harry the first 17 years of his life, before Pettigrew dies. Hagrid shouldn't have even been able to find him in the rubble of the house, as the fact no one knew Pettigrew was the Secret-Keeper requires that no third parties were told, or they surely would have spoke up when Sirius was accused.
    • Peter's shouting "Lily and James: how could you?!", or words to that effect, at Sirius was probably enough to let Sirius and any nearby Muggles in on the Secret. After blowing up the street and fleeing, Pettigrew would've let the Fidelius Charm lapse, ensuring that Sirius couldn't prove his innocence by demonstrating how he couldn't share the Potters' Secret with others.
    • 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, 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 performed 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.
    • Except Snape's wrong. Harry is able to open a flue connection to Grimmauld Place in Order of the Phoenix, which he does the normal way, by speaking the name. It seems more likely that other people simply won't understand him if they did overhear him. (Which raises the interesting point that Snape could have led an invasion of Death Eaters there at any time, even before Dumbledore died. He just had to send people via flue.)
    • He was not wrong. He was deliberately lying to Voldemort.
  • 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.
    • If I remember correctly, Dumbledore had to dig up the 'old, complicated' Fidelius Charm when he was making arrangements to protect the Potters. It's possible that when they cast it they didn't know that people could be their own Secret Keepers, and it was only discovered in later years when the spell was used and experimented with more.
    • Why wouldn't they know? It's the most painfully obvious aspect of it. So either whoever invented it didn't think of it, or DD didn't think to test it, or he used a spell that he didn't fully understand or had a full description for.
      • It's possible that when they cast it they didn't know that people could be their own Secret Keepers, and it was only discovered in later years when the spell was used and experimented with more. They weren't saying they just didn't think of it - they're pointing out that it might not have been possible at the time the Potters went into hiding, and they didn't find out it was possible until magic had evolved enough to allow for it to work that way.

    Self-sacrifice 

  • 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 The Power of Love 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 torturing them into insanity.
    • Going along with this, Voldemort killed tons of people, he was ruthless; I find it unlikely that no one else sacrificed themselves for something they loved threatened them; it's a pretty common thing to do in face of AK.
    • The Power of Love is not picky. Voldemort basically made a magical contract with the right conditions. He was going to spare Lilly because of Snape. Then Lilly made a counter offer("Kill me instead of Harry"). Killing Lilly, he accepted the trade.
    • Besides, wasn't it a Muggle family that Voldemort killed? Odds are that you have to be a witch to invoke a magical protection on people...

    Infiltration 

  • 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...)

um why do you think that it was stated anywhere that the memories Hermione gave her parents had a daughter in it? she changed their memories to NOT have a daughter in the first place.

  • 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.
  • The Ministry was the only lead they had to go on. They knew she worked there and there might be the possibility that the locket was somewhere in her office. They know she has it and that she works at the Ministry, so what else are they going to do? And the plan was to get inside her office. Maybe her home address would be somewhere in there too. And since it's a piece of jewellery she has, there's good reason to think she might be actually wearing it - which she was.

    Questioning 

  • 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 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 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!'
    • If I were freakin' Bellatrix Lestrange, I'd find Legilimency boring.

    The Baby 
  • What was that baby in Kings Cross Station?
    • It was the part of Voldemort's soul that had resided in Harry's scar since 1981.

    Protection wearing off 

  • 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 multiple 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.
    • Dumbledore states in Book 6: "The magic I evoked fifteen years ago means that Harry has powerful protection while he can still call this house 'home.'" That means, he cast a spell based on Lily's original, self-sacrifice-thin.

    Main characters do everything 

  • 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, "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 Big Bad" 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 Because Destiny Says So.
    • 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, Tonks was still considered a kid by some or most of the members, and Moody was... definitely the sharpest bulb in the box.
    • Also, thanks to Voldie's actions, it would be impossible to kill him while Harry is still alive. Voldemort, or potentially someone else I guess, had to 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 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.
    • Also, Dumbledore didn't get cursed by destroying the ring. He got cursed because he lost sight of the danger when he realised that it was a Hallow, and put it on, ignoring the horrific curse that he should have realised that Voldemort put on it.
    • And there's an alternative fanon explanation, that the ring had a compulsion on it, and DD was just more susceptible because he knew already wanted the ring.

    Yaxley through the charm 

  • 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 secret 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 Grimmauld 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 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?
    • What I gather is that Hermione apparated them to Grimmauld Place and panicked when she saw that Yaxley was with them. She instinctively apparated them out and didn't realise the consequences until they were safe. Remember, she's brilliant but she's also not very good at keeping her head in stressful situations.

    Snape's love 

  • 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).

    Killing Snape 

  • 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 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?
    • How would he disarm Snape of the Elder Wand when he already had the Elder Wand? Hand it to him and then disarm him? That seems like an insane thing for paranoid Voldemort to do. Granted, it would have transferred allegiance if Snape had had the allegiance and he'd disarmed Snape of his existing wand (Except it wouldn't have worked, it would have probably backfired and killed him.), but that wasn't an obvious fact to anyone but Harry. With the knowledge that Voldemort had, and the stupidity that he'd shown about actual magical knowledge (as opposed to just forcing his way past things), he actually was doing pretty good to figure out that Snape might have won it, and him killing Snape would fix that, and he was smart enough not to use the wand against its (supposed) master.
    • 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?
    • Voldemort only knew that he had to 'defeat' Snape. In his mind, the only way to do that was to kill him. But he didn't want to use the Elder Wand against the person he thought was its master.
    • The "not really mean it" is a good explanation, for the AK to work he has to wish Snape dead and, though yes he is a psycopath and clearly won’t spare Snape out of any care for him, Snape is one of the most competent wizards in the world and a key ally (specially as headmaster of Hogwarts, a position that won’t be easy to replace) so he can’t use the AK as he really don’t wish for Snape’s dead.
    • Voldemort definitely has no idea that the Elder Wand's allegiance can be transferred without killing its master, else he would've questioned Snape and Draco much more thoroughly about Dumbledore's death when he realized the Wand was fighting him, and murdered Draco instead.

    Other magical communities 

  • 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 Britain 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 behavior 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 Britain 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 Britain 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 Britain, but I would have liked to at least be given a reason for why the rest of the world doesn't seem to care.
    • 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 Britain 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.
    • For the most part, I don't think anything that was going on was perceived as part of a major problem. Either Voldemort was incredibly narrow-minded in his scope, was stopped before he was able to actually start a global war, or Rowling just forgot that the rest of the world outside Britain existed at the time of writing. The second is the most likely scenario, but if it's the first one then it would be more apt to compare Voldemort's oppression to the situation in North Korea. Nobody really knows (or cares) what's going on there so long as they're not crossing borders. He had already gathered a bestial force to wage war in what's most likely ONLY the UK, and only after his power was secured there would he have moved on. It's not like there wasn't a global war before, either; the Grindelwald conflict was global, and tied in to WWII in terms of time.
    • Now I imagine Voldemort actually conquering Britain, then saying "I now require Spain and Albania", taking over them while everyone else. Soon, voldemort has all of Europe, while China, Japan, Canada, and America say "Oh not my problem." Then, he goes and knocks over China's tea into Japan's rice and America's coffee into Canada's Poutine. Then they all say, "Now, it's my problem."
    • I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thought of this. I had imagined a simple Hand Wave being that international politics never really came into play because those departments never really were encountered in the ministry. Voldemort was the puppet minister of magic, so he probably got the foreign relations to say "Oh, nothing's going on". Diplomats would basically be brainwashed into saying "Everything's alright over there, they got it in control".
    • Maybe magical Britain is rather unimportant. Unimportant countries have the bad luck that other countries tend to look away if it is not important for themselfs to help said countries. As an real life example: Russia basicly invaded eastern Ukraine and got away with it. Guess what would have happend if Russia had done the same with Alaska.

    Lupin at Grimmauld Place 

  • 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.
    • Birth control is not 100 percent. Could be an oops baby.
    • Tonks may not want an abortion OR Tonks may not be able to have an abortion because of the shifting. It may be a pretty dangerous thing, shes on the table letting it happen, panics during procedure, and starts morphing needed body parts causing immeasurable damage. Really not a good risk :/
    • 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 the late 20th century in the Muggle world (as of the time the novels are taking place). 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.
    • Moreover, there are probably as many real-life superstitions about birth-control methods as there are about love potions, dating back to prehistory. In a setting where everything else that's magical is for real, it's only to be expected that some of those would actually be functional.
    • 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).
    • Muggles have birth control, but we don't always use it. Maybe it was a But We Used a Condom 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 Britain. 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.
    • Because there isn't that much diversity in the area Hogwarts traditionally receives. I think there is mention that Hogwarts will more or less take anyone with minimum requirements but parents in Americas or Africa are not really going to want their kid so far away. Makes sense to me most characters would be white, and personally I think its awesome how many non whites are actual characters later on. Racism in skin tone doesn't really exist at Hogwarts. It is played out within the wizarding lineage way, which seems like an intense move and is mentioned a ton.
    • The reason Lupin and Tonks have a baby despite the fact Lupin thinks it's an extremely bad idea: let's say there's a birth control potion which only one partner has to take. Since he's so worried about them having kids, he volunteers to take the potion. However, maybe it's actually not so effective on werewolves. Or maybe he just forgot. Remember in POA when he just forgot to take his Wolfsbane Potion? It's kind of like taking a daily birth control pill — some people are a bit forgetful. And prior behavior has shown he can be disastrously forgetful. Also, in the real world, when people are used to taking a certain dose of medication, but have to take something different another day, it can throw them off. So if he's still been getting Wolfsbane Potion, maybe on the day he had to take that, he forgot to also take the birth control potion, and then forgot he hadn't taken it, and then boned Tonks. Oops. I guess this is all a bit Fan Wank-y, but considering the bit in POA where he wrecks shit by going all rampaging werewolf, Lupin being forgetful seems like a compelling explanation to me.
    • "Just forgot to take his Wolfsbane Potion"? Jesus Christ, the man had just seen the name of his long dead friend appear on the map, and his apparently evil other friend cornering three children - he was probably a little bit preoccupied! Also, why is everyone assuming that Tonks purposefully got pregnant? Chances are her and Lupin got caught up in the heat of the moment so weren't especially careful with contraceptives one night. It happens all the time, people don't realise that the pill doesn't work with certain antibiotics, they get drunk and don't put the condom on properly, they forget to have their implant replaced.
    • The problem is that some tropers seem to think that using things like quills and parchments equals having the mentality/culture of the time period when does devices were used. But that’s like assuming that Cuba has a 50s mentality because they use cars from the 50s or that every time we have a retro fashion we change mentalities. Wizards use things like quills and parchment probably because they can be more easily converted into magical objects, in a similar way how they use wands and not laser pointers or brooms and not vacuum machines. So, besides that, I do agree that in general Wizards’ sexual culture and knowledge of the human body seems to be more or less the same that the one of the 80s society (which if I’m not wrong is the time period were the stories happened). Most logical explanation: broken condom/failed contraceptive method (magical or not).
    • Tonks getting pregnant is described by Lupin as a lapse in judgement, like his wedding her. It is the same lame justification he gave her the year prior. Tonks makes him happy, having a baby makes him happy, but his own self-loathing gets in the way. It is not a problem of not getting contraception or anything. It is just that Lupin probably allowed himself to think like a normal person and try to be happy for a moment, thought having a baby was ok, and then when shit became real, he realized 'how shit I'm having a baby' and got cold feet, and his old reflexes came back. Hence his 'I made a mistake' thoughts. Besides, he admits that there is no known case of lycantropy being passed down from a father to his son. Hermione, and most people seemed to consider Lupin, well, loony for even thinking that might happen. He was just freaking out because there was no serious study GARANTEEING that it most definitely never happens. Lupin was getting ready to abandon his family on the slim, never seen before, off-chance that his son might, maybe, inherit his lycantropy. I cannot really fathom Tonks actually following him on this. It would be like a person with AIDS refusing to touch people because he might spread it, and urging the people he allowed himself to touch to burn their hands just in case. Also, he does admit that the baby is just the tip of the iceberg, the icing on the cake. He had already been bothered by the fact that wedding Tonks basically made her an outcast in most wizarding social circles, and wanted to opt out, rather than face the people who made fun and threw insults of his wife.
    • The argument that wizard/witch values and taboos align with their 1990s muggle counterparts because they give interracial dating no notice is a poor one. Most things that contributed to modern racism would have little impact on magical communities. Religious sanctioned slavery that gave way to chattel enterprises among the most profitable industries of muggles? No, wizards have their own slaves that are genetically predisposed to serve humans and are largely non religious, what with the glaring lack of witch/wizard holy writings and places. Fear of the unknown? In Europe, Harry Potter being set there, muggles became relatively isolated after the fall of the Roman Empire, to the point many forgot the majority of world did not look like them. White European wizards on the other hand were still having good times with the brownies as far away as what muggles called New Zealand when they "discovered" it and ruined all the fun. Competition won't do it because wizards see muggles as a whole, as well as numerous non humans that nonetheless posses something resembling sapience, as their opponents. That doesn't mean magical communities are more accepting of birth control than muggle ones. Quite the contrary, the magical community of Britain is worried about dying out and within the larger community pure bloods are even more worried that they specifically will be dying out. They could be less excepting on average than the local muggle populations.

    Thousand year-old tree 

  • 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?
    • Albania.
    • 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.
    • Plenty of trees can last a thousand years or more. The oldest tree in existence has been around 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 there are 2,000-year-old yew trees in Britain.
    • Well technically we don't know if it was still in the same tree. Helena just said she left it in a hollow tree in Albania. She doesn't know how Voldemort found it or where. For all we know, he could have searched the whole country before he found it.

    Ministry tracer spell 

  • 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 referring 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.
    • Remember, also, that this is Britain, and there are people, such as peers and bishops, who are legitimately addressed as "My Lord".
    • And if the Ministry did try to tag "Dark Lord" as a Taboo, they'd probably have to discontinue doing so after the ninth or tenth false-alarm summons to a Muggle Tolkien reading, Star Wars convention, or Ravenloft game campaign.
    • Also, not everyone who called Voldemort "the Dark Lord" were Death Eaters. The Ministry would be getting false alarms anytime someone decided to talk about current events, or if a teacher was talking about recent history, or if aurors were having a meeting about ways to defeat Voldemort. After a while it would get counterproductive.

    Unbreakable vow 

  • 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.
    • This seems to be the most logical explanation. We rarely hear of Voldemort actually killing his followers. He punishes and tortures them for their mistakes, but he doesn't kill - except in fury after they've stolen the cup from Bellatrix's vault. The unbreakable vow results in certain death, so he'd be down a few followers if they got cold feet.

    Lupin's help 

  • 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 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.
    • Because that was probably the only way to knock some sense into Lupin and get him to go back to his child. As someone above said, Harry has issues with child abandonment, so he was going to do whatever it took to keep his friend from abandoning his child.
    • True, but Harry is also being a monstrous hypocrite here given that he is the son of a man who did exactly what 'horrible' thing Remus is trying to do right now; leave behind his wife to take care of his son while he goes out on combat missions during a war. It's not like James Potter resigned from the Order of the Phoenix the day Harry was born. War sucks, Harry, and its not just single guys who have to go fight it — you are not 'abandoning' anything if you volunteer to serve your country when its being invaded by fucking magical Nazis. Are you even British, Harry Potter? What happened to "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."?
    • But that's exactly why Harry does it. He knows first hand what it is to grow up without (loving) parents, and put himself in the shoes of Remus' son. And to be fair, the implication is that, even pregnant, both Lily and Tonks keep on the fight, if not full time, and at their husband's sides.
    • If I were Andromeda Tonks I would be direly insulted at this line of reasoning of Harry's, given that its based on the assumption 'Remus' son would be raised by the equivalent of the Dursleys', because in order to grow up without loving parental figures it takes more than 'your natural parents are dead', it also takes 'and the family you do end up with are titanic assholes'. The most charitable thing we can say about Harry's thought process here is that he's being a self-centered idiot who thinks that because it happened to him its therefore a universal condition.
    • Or he’s, you know, human, and not only human, a teenage human with no experience of life and no other real example of an orphan that was raised in good circumstances (as the only other examples I remember are Voldemort raised in an orphanage and Neville raised by his grandma that, although not as bad as the Dursleys and clearly loves Neville, was still somewhat abusive, at least psychologically, as Neville is scare of her). So he has no reason (at least to his experience) to know that orphan children can have loving and caring surrogates at that point, as there’s no Internet in that period and he doesn’t watch television. And even if he knows that is not a universal condition intuitively he still may not want to take a chance.

    Destroying a Horcrux 

  • 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.
    • The fact that the Fiendfyre spell is both incredibly dangerous to its caster if not properly controlled and can be invoked by even a substandard student like Crabbe sounds like a very good reason why it was considered too Dark to be taught at Hogwarts, at least until psychos like the Carrows started teaching classes.

    House elf weapons 

  • 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
    • Don't underestimate the lethality of sharp kitchen knives in the skilled hands of professional chefs.
    • Sharp, enchanted kitchen knives, most likely; house-elves don't have much muscle-power, and some of those roasts would've been tough to carve without a little help. Can you say "Ginzu vorpal weapon", kids?

    Magical healing 

  • In the book Harry grumbles about never having learned how to magically heal. Hogwarts has no compulsory First-Aid courses?
    • 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 Book Dumb.
    • are you forgetting that Hermione is a Teen Genius? She knew plenty of things that were outside of the school curriculum from reading so much.
    • 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.
    • One that he had just learned at the start of the year from Tonks, and that only worked to heal broken noses. Not that useful for splinching.
    • Bearing splinching in mind, seems like a bad idea to push first aid. Have it available for those who see the benefit, but not make it a requirement. Then you would have kids like Fred and George deciding "We know how to fix ourselves now lets see what else we can do!"
    • Presumably you learn it if you train to become a Healer.

    Destruction of the cup 

  • 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 Wild Mass Guessing 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 Dumbledore 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?
    • The Marvolo ring was being stored with one of the three most powerful magical artifacts on the planet; that might have had something to do with it.
    • Fridge Logic kicks in: they didn't use those horcruxes. Ginny wrote in the Diary, DD wore the ring and H,R&H wore the locket (which all three felt draining them). While they didn't use use the cup (how would you use it anyway?) and didn't wear the diadem (which make the owner smarter so there is some temptation in wearing it).
    • I would think the obvious way of "using" the Cup would be to drink from it. Hepzibah Smith mentions that it, like the Locket, is rumored to possess unique magical properties, although this is never expounded upon; still, the idea that it might imbibe a liquid placed within it with special properties (Holy Grail, anyone?) makes sense. Presumably, someone tempted to do so while it was a Horcrux would become emotionally dependent on it and thus vulnerable, as would someone writing in the Diary or wearing the Ring.
    • Drinking from the cup seems to be the most logical way for the Horcrux to work. And wearing the diadem too.

    Basilisk venom and Harry 

  • 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.

    Tabooing horcrux 
  • 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.
    • Plus, Death Eaters don't magically appear out of thin air. There's presumably some people sitting around monitoring the 'Taboo spell'...so it's entirely possible that if you Taboo a word, the monitors hear it. Or even will know what words they're listening for in advance. Voldemort doesn't want anyone to even know that word, not even his own people.

    Opening the locket 

  • Yet another Locket Horcrux question: why do they have to open the thing to destroy it? can't they just slash the outside and be done with it?
    • Rule of Drama.
    • Perhaps the outer casing was thicker than the inner bit of the locket?
    • I'm pretty sure Kreacher mentions that the casing had numerous protective spells over it, so opening it would be ideal.

    Five year old corpse 

  • 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 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 care. 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 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 would they bother in cleaning the corpse of a dead basilisk in a sealed chamber that really no one can enter?
    • It's so hard to enter because you have to know that only parselmouths can get in. Ron wasn't a parselmouth but he was able to open it in book seven by making snake noises at it, and there's a snake CARVED in the faucet. DD could have had Harry open it and then sent whoever in, or had Harry make the noise so others can duplicate it. Frankly, if Ron can happen upon the sound with just a few tries five years after the last time he heard it, I'd be shocked if Kingsley or Moody couldn't do the same trivially easily.
    • Actually, Ron last heard Harry speaking Parseltongue was a few months prior when Harry used it to open the locket; he even specifically says as much when explaining how he and Hermione got into the Chamber. The rest of the point about Kingsley and Moody copying the sound as well still stands, though.

    Powerless Voldemort 

  • Why make such a huge deal about destroying 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.
    • Harry's sacrifice protected everyone else at Hogwarts from Voldemorts spells. The fact that he was the Master of the Elder Wand was why he was not hurt by the Cruciatus Curse. If Narcissa had said he was alive, V would have probably tried again, realised the Elder Wand didn't work, and use someone elses.

    First name basis 

  • 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.)
    • As a way of reminding Lucius of exactly who is in charge. He is used to being called "Lord Malfoy" or "Mr. Malfoy" all the time, so calling him by his given name is a sign of familiarity bordering on downright disrespect for someone of Lucious's stature.
    • He's certainly would not used to being called "Lord Malfoy" since we're discussing canon and not bad fanon.

    Hermione's wand 

  • 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 cemetery in Goblet of Fire V's wand replayed the spells it performed 15 years before).
      • Yes, but those were the previous immediate spells the wand had cast, it simply hadn't been in use for those 15 years, with its owner being mostly dead and all.
    • That doesn't mean there's a limit to how far back Priori Incantatem goes.

    Angelina, Fred, and George 

  • 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 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 alternate theory: J.K. didn't mean to do a Settle for Sibling at all, she just forgot which twin she'd originally set her up with.)
    • There is an interview with Rowling (I don't want to be that person who says "I read it once" without having a source in hand, but I don't know the name of the documentary; it is, however, the one that comes as an extra in my copy of the Half-Blood Prince DVD. I think it's fairly well-known) where she actually admits Angelina and George are a bit of an odd pairing, and might not be the most healthy given the circumstances, but that she believes they were happy together. Guess it's not the kind of relationship a therapist would support without several warnings, but if they get along well, it works. Also to the above: I'm pretty sure I remember Fred and Angelina being together at the Yule ball; there's a passage about how they dance so dramatically that other pairs have to make way for them.
    • They could have started out bonding over mutual grief about Fred's death, then gone on to get to know each other from there.

    Emmeline Vance 

  • 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?
    • Here's a theory. Severus Snape did provide information that lead to her death. He did not mean to, he thought it was something superfluous that would only sound useful to someone ignorant, but is making the best of a bad situation.

    Summoning Kreacher 

  • Why didn't Harry and co. summon Kreacher when they were held by the Malfoys? Maybe they didn't think of it at first, but once Dobby showed up, you'd think that they'd have thought, "Hey, House Elves are really helpful in this situation, maybe two would be better and safer for all involved."
    • For that matter, why did they never summon Kreacher? They were worried about him and what was happening at Grimmauld Place. Isn't it possible that the Ministry might have captured him and tortured him for serving the enemy? Why weren't they more concerned?
    • If it did, then summoning him would probably lead the enemy to the Trio. On the other hand, it'd been already established that elves, when not bound by their conditioning, can stand for themselves just fine.
    • How would they follow him? We've never seen anything in canon that can track a house-elf. And they already know that Bellatrix or Narcissa can't give Kreacher any orders if Harry has ordered Kreacher not to accept them; they tested that in book 6.
    • Well, neither did we know untill the book 7 that saying V's name could be a bad thing. The point is that summoning him would've been a great risk, and avoiding it was one of the few smart things the Trio did.
    • Perhaps house elves are not quite as useful as people think, and cannot apparate into other people's property. Otherwise, at some point, they'd be used as thieves and assassins. It's worth noting that Dobby does not appear to apparate into Harry's house in the second book, either. So how did Dobby get into Malfoy Manor? Because Lucius freed him without actually 'firing' him. I.e., the magic binding Dobby to Lucius was removed...but Dobby still 'worked' for him, and thus, technically, still had access to Malfoy Manor, because at no point did Lucius say 'You are no longer in my employ, Dobby'.
    • The book states they were afraid to summon Kreacher at first because Yaxley had gotten inside Grimmauld Place at that point, and they were afraid Kreacher wouldn't be able to Apparate to them without a Death Eater trying to tag along, like Yaxley had with Hermione in the first place. As time went on, they would've realized that they hadn't a clue as to Kreacher's location or the situation he was in, and thus wouldn't have known whether they could safely summon him. As for why they didn't think to it inside Malfoy Manor, they weren't thinking at the time, "Hey, house elves are cool, let's call in another one, der-her-her!" They were in the middle of an escape mission from their enemy's base, and they didn't want to bring in any more potential casualties than they already had with Dobby, in addition to the reasons listed above.

    Pettigrew not killing Harry 

  • Since V was absolutely adamant that only he was allowed to kill Potter, why was Pettigrew's reluctance to do it considered a sign of treason punishable by death?
    • This is more about the fact that even if Voldy allowed him to kill Potter, Pettigrew still wouldn't do it. It's more about "If I let you kill him, would you want to do it?" than actually killing him.
    • Peter's hand turned on him not because of his hesitation, but because of why he hesitated. He was reminded of the life debt and, rather than keep trying to kill Harry, he showed a moment of pity and doubt about killing the boy. That moment was enough to seal Peter's doom, since showing pity towards Voldemort's enemy is tantamount to a full betrayal of the Dark Lord.

    Learning Parseltongue 

  • Why is Parseltongue now a learnable language? It's been established since book 2 that Parseltongue is a magical language, it can't be learned by any normal means and is strictly hereditary (barring otherwise unnatural soul transferences). How, then, is Ron able to simply memorize a sound with a particular meaning, and then repeat the sound? That's pretty much the definition of learning a language- you learn the sound, associate it with the proper meaning, and repeat the sound. Grammar and syntax can be figured out after you've built up a decent vocabulary.
    • To tell the truth, Ron only "learned" one word, it was the only word Harry uttered in his presence, and it'd been pretty obvious that the word means "open", so he didn't need to accociate anything. It is still a giant Ass Pull, of course, because the Parseltongue is not hissing - it is merely how the profane percieve it. It is the same as if somebody managed to imitate the sound of a working dial-up moded and expected to be able to establish a valid internet-connection that way.
    • The Chamber entrance wasn't keyed to fluency in Parseltongue, only to a specific vocal sound which just happened to have a meaning in Parseltongue. It worked for the same reason that McGonagall, who had no idea what a "lemon drop" was, could still have used the sound of that phrase to access Dumbledore's office door.
    • Parseltongue was established as a "learnable language" in Book 6, actually; it's fairly clear from the Gaunt flashback that Dumbledore can understand it, even if he can't speak it (although he probably would've been able to repeat a couple of basic words if necessary). I got the sense that it was somewhat similar to Mermish or Gobbledegook - the rapid speech patterns and strained noises required to communicate in it makes it very difficult for humans to learn, but not impossible (makes me wonder if Barty Crouch Sr., speaker of "over two hundred" languages, knew Parseltongue as well). Salazar's line just so happens to be genetically predispositioned to speaking/understanding snake-language instinctively, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that is the only way to learn.
    • No, that doesn't show any learning at all. The memory was extracted from a parseltongue-speaker, and I assume that Dumbledore could only understand because he is literally watching someone's perceptions. Harry doesn't have to consciously interpret parseltongue, and thus any memory extracted from Harry would probably also be automatically translated. Again, it's also been stated outright in canon that it can only be understood by someone with the innate trait, not that it was simply a language spoken by a magical species that is "difficult" to learn.
    • Err...no, that memory comes from Bob Ogden, who doesn't understand a lick of Parseltongue. So there really is no other conclusion to reach than that Dumbledore knows some amount of Parseltongue, and that it is therefore a learnable language...if still an incredibly difficult one.

    Evacuating through Hogsmeade 

  • So, on the verge of the final battle they are evacuating smaller kids through the secret passage to Hogsmeade...that is teeming with Death Eaters and Dementors and has anti-apparition alarms. Aren't they missing something with that brilliant idea?
    • Considering that the Death Eaters were too busy leading with the battle at Hogwarts, I really doubt that they would cause trouble at Hogsmeade. As for the dementors, I bet they could arrange the kids to be put into groups with one student who could do a Patronus I bet there are a few of them that can do it even if it's difficult to do.
    • Plus, it's fairly likely that most, if not all of the dementors stationed in Hogsmeade would have been repurposed for the Battle of Hogwarts. Harry's point to McGonagall is fairly sound; with all of Voldemort's forces focused solely on attacking Hogwarts Castle, security surrounding Hogsmeade would be rather lax. And as for the last point, since the remaining Order members were apparating directly into the Hog's Head, I think it's pretty clear that Aberforth somehow managed to prevent his pub from being affected by the "alarms."

    Protecting Grimmauld 

  • What was the charm to protect Grimmauld Place supposed to do? All that Snape would have done is say "kill". Or something. -Nothing too dangerous or difficult.
    • The shut-off trigger for the enchantment wasn't the word "kill;" it was the spell realizing that whoever was entering was not Severus Snape. Since Snape never enters the house after Moody sets up "Old Dusty," we have no idea exactly what it would have done, but it's probably safe to assume that it wouldn't be pretty.

    Hiding Horcruxes 

  • Why didn't Voldie hide at least one of his horcruxes in the Chamber of Secrets? he thought that he was the only person ever to find the Room of requirement, but that's in a relatively accessible place. And he didn't even bother to curse the diadem or anything. The Chamber of Secrets he could've been sure that only he could get into it being the last Parseltongue on earth.
    • Presumably, he didn't want one Horcrux (the Diary) to act as a "key" for any of the others. Remember that, while Voldemort might have considered it within reason that someone (i.e. Regulus) could figure out that he had a Horcrux, he was absolutely certain that no one would ever figure out that he had Horcruxes, plural. Since the Diary was intended to be used someday to reopen the Chamber and release Salazar's Basilisk upon a new generation of Muggleborns, he wouldn't have wanted to risk two Horcruxes (and thus the exposure of his use of multiple Soul Jars) should that plan go south. Better to hide the Diadem in the unrelated but (in his estimation) just as impossible-to-find Room of Requirement.
    • Oh, and plus, its general agreed-upon that he hid the Diadem either right before or right after his job interview with Dumbledore. That means he would've been fairly pressed for time so as not to alert the headmaster's suspicions, which would probably prohibit him from visiting the Chamber or placing more intricate protections on the Diadem.
    • WMG: After killing Myrtle, he knew Dumbledore suspected him as the real culprit and knew about the chamber of secrets. He assumed Dumbledore would have had plenty of time to investigate, especially after he became the Headmaster of Hogwarts.
    • Voldemort was never stated to be the last Parselmouth on Earth. He was the last descendent of Salazar Slytherin, and possibly the only Parselmouth in Great Britain, but it's certainly possible that there are other families of Parselmouths in other parts of the world, one of which might one day immigrate to Britain or get hired as a Hogwarts teacher from overseas.
    • You seem to be forgetting two things here:
    • 1. There was a Basilisk living in the Chamber. You know, one of the few things able to destroy a Horcrux? And being a living creature, it could easily have done so by accident.
    • 2. The attacks stopped after Myrtle was killed. Imagine if he'd gone to hide something in the Chamber and she'd seen him. Not only would that potentially give away the location of the Chamber itself, but the identity of the Heir, and the fact he was trying to get in to hide something - even if they hadn't worked out it was a Horcrux, whoever she told would be VERY interested to know that Tom Riddle had his hands on whichever Founder's object it was...
    • Heck, once Myrtle was haunting the bathroom, using the Chamber too much would run the risk that Myrtle would learn to mimic the opening phrase, same as Ron did. The last thing Voldemort would want is a depressed ghost triggering the bathroom's secret door when McGonagall has stepped in for a pee between lectures.

    Explaining to Griphook 

  • Why didn't Harry, Ron, and Hermione try explaining to Griphook that they needed to hold on to the sword? Harry actually mentions that while Griphook's deal is that he gets the sword, he doesn't stipulate when. Why not, when they were initially trying to get Griphook's help, tell him that the sword is necessary to defeat Voldemort, and that it will be a while before he can get it. He may have said no, of course, but is that any reason not to try?
    • Griphook was already on the verge of flipping out at them as it was; they had to pacify him by consenting to his demands, and even the slightest explanation of why they need the sword might tick him off. Griphook didn't really give them much room to speak. Besides—even if the Trio didn't know about it—he was working for Voldemort. Would he have been swayed by their explanation?
    • Working for Voldemort? What gives you that idea? (Sure, working against Harry is indirectly helping Voldemort, but it's not at all the same thing, especially as Griphook doesn't know anything about the Horcrux Quest.)
    • Regarding Griphook and the sword: What happened when the sword suddenly disappeared - which I assume is what happens when Neville pulls it out of the hat? Does Griphook try to find it? Is it given back? Does it confirm his suspicions about the sneakiness of wizards, regardless of context?
    • Which is another issue that the movie had rectified by having V kill the little snot during his rampage. Let's assume that's what happened here as well.
    • Not sure if this is fanon, or Word of God, or what, but Goblins are notorious for maintaining neutrality in the Wizarding world. It's probably the only way they've managed to keep their positions at Gringotts, (aside from the fact that it's the only bank in Wizarding Britain). If the Goblins were ever to take a side in anything, then when the next regime came into power, they'd be booted out. They stick to their jobs, holding peoples' money and possessions, regardless of their political beliefs, blood status, or evil/good alignment. That way, they're everyone's friend. Now, the Goblins may or may not be particularly wary of Voldemort; I doubt that he'd treat the goblins kindly, but he's never vocalized a particular stance against them- at least, that I remember. Feel free to call me out on this. Suppose that Harry tells Griphook about their plans. That immediately puts their 'neutrality' status at risk. If someone started telling me their plans to take down the leader of a faction, and I was trying to stay neutral in the conflict for my own safety, I'd be sticking my fingers in my ears and saying, "La La La La!" You can definitely expect that he might not have been as helpful- even less so than he already was- if he knew they were planning on taking down the group that currently controlled the government.
    • Griphook seems to have had a very intense and specific knowledge of the contents of the Gringotts vaults. Why couldn't Harry "write a check," so to speak, vowing to pay Griphook some amount of Galleons to buy the sword, or just to rent it for exactly long enough to destroy three specific objects with it, two of which he could name off the top of his head? It would have been a better deal for Griphook, since he'd get the sword, the money, AND be able to claim a favor from Harry later. (The life debt was already paid for with information.)

    Apparating from the dragon 

  • When the Trio are flying the dragon after the heist, Harry is concerned about when and where the dragon is going to land, and whether it decides to fly oversea and what if it notices and wants to eat them...uhm, why don't they just apparate away?
    • Because they would apparate with the dragon, or at least part of the dragon? There is canon evidence that you can side-apparate with someone else accidentally by grabbing into him/her(Hermione brought their persecutors to grimauld place that way) so they might not want to risk it.
    • That's kind of a stretch. One thing is an actively pursuing them wizard who actually grabbed Hermie, and another is a dragon they merely ride on. It's not like they were commonly apparating parts of the landscape with them, is it? And even if they do take a part of the dragon with them, well, sucks to be the dragon. As for the risk, again, Harry was worried (rather legitimately, I might add) that the dragon will take god know where or just eat them. What was there to risk?
    • The wizard merely grabbed their robes, and got side apparated with them(Either because they haven't practiced enough to select who gets side apparated, or everyone you're "touching" gets aparatted when you side-apparate), they were in the dragon, so either they transport a chunk of the dragon with them, or the whole dragon. The trio aren't precisely know for risking the life of anything they might consider sentient innecesarily.
    • Nothing ever points to Dragons being sentient. And what do you mean "innecesarily"? They were afraid it might eat them!
    • Fan Theory here: Apparation next to a creature that magical(that resists most spells) might not work or be hazardous- taking a chunk out of the dragon by accident seems like the 'best' case scenario to me. Also the dragon has had a pretty terrible life of slavery already, having a chunk taken out of it would be just overkill.
    • Dragons don't resist spells. In GoF in the first task they blind the dragon with magic.
    • It's stated in the same book (Goblet of Fire) that dragons are highly resistant to magic, with their eyes being the exception, their one serious weak point. Hitting the dragon's eyes with a Conjunctivitis Curse was going to be Sirius's solution for Harry to get past his in the First Task.
    • Sentient or not it’s still out of character for the Trio to kill an innocent animal (and in a very painful and gruesome way as it will be to de detach a part of its body) even if they were afraid of been eaten.
    • You try to stand up and turn on the spot while riding a huge scaly sharp-spined beast whose body moves up and down with every wingbeat, hundreds of feet in the air. I'll watch. Through a telescope from the next county.
    • Also, apparition might conserve speed. So you end up on the ground still travelling at the flying speed of dragon. So... splat.

    Potter assassination 

  • The whole Potter-assassination scene bugs me for two reasons.
    • First the major one. Why would the Potters leave their wands apart? No, I don't care how "safe" or "relaxed" they felt - I dare you to find at least one moment in all the seven books, when anybody, no matter how safe or relaxed they were, didn't have their wand on them. You won't. And there's a good reason for that, namely the fact that the wizards use their wands all the time and for everything. Dick jokes aside, the wands are practically extensions to their bodies.
    • Regarding the wands, wasn't it stated that James had been playing with Harry just before the attack. Given that wands are valuable, (perhaps invaluable), potentially dangerous, and breakable, maybe he thought it wouldn't be such a good idea to have his wand within reach of a baby.
    • Indeed, he was. In fact, as witnessed by V, James was "making puffs of colored smoke with his wand", which rather clashes with your theory.
    • So maybe the Potters' way of indicating "Playtime's over" to baby Harry was to let him watch as they set their wands aside? Many parents of young kids use little rituals — close the storybook, flip on the nightlight, shut the toy chest — to visually reinforce that it's time for their toddler to go to sleep.
    • Ok, makes sense. But he doesn't just set it aside - he throws it on the coach. Wouldn't simply tucking into the pocket/holster achieve the same effect?
    • Now the humongous one. James yells to Lily: "Take Harry and run". Ok, he's staying behind to cover their escape, as befits a man, good for him, I mean it. Except that, where's she supposed to run? No, that's not a rethorical question, I honestly want to know what the contingency plan was. You know, like a portable time-independant portkey (we know they exist, Crouch used one), or a Vanishing cabinet (it is mentioned, that they were popular during the First War) with a self-destruct mechanism, or a detachable room that lifts off and flies away, while the rest of the house explodes, or litrally anything that doesn't leave them locked insinde their own house to be slaughtered like cattle. Seriously, NOTHING?!!! These allegedly brilliant wizards didn't prepare ANY emergency escape route? How did they even manage to "thrice defy him" when they seem to be completely unconcerned with their own survival?
    • We don't necessarily know that there weren't any of those safety measures you stated. Maybe Voldy was blocking the way, or he was in the nursery too fast for Lily to do anything other than shield her son (like grabbing the broom under the dresser or whatever). They didn't really have a reason to be very uptight about as of the minute safety - nothing had attacked so far, they were under the very secure fidelus curse and there's no way their friend Peter would betray them. As for them not having their wands on them...no idea. People have misplaced/temporarily forgotten more important things. Maybe it's the magical equivalent of forgetting to put your watch on?
    • We saw the whole scene from V's POV, there was no indication that he had to overcome or block anything, and Lily had enough time to barricade the door. So, no. As for the rest, I said it and I'll repeat it: when you plan contingency measures, you do not placate yourself - you expand from the worst possible scenario, where all conventional means of protection have failed like, in our case, where their friend Pettegrew was captured and tortured horribly into revealing the secret. The wands - no, it's rather the equivalent of forgetting to load your gun before going into battle. It wouldn't bug me so much, if it was about ordinary people, but potters were supposed to be brilliant and relatively battle-hardened, yet still they commit such unfathomably stupid blunders.
    • They were smart and capable, but they were also twenty-one-year-olds, so I think it's something of a stretch to call them "battle-hardened." In any event, though, my guess is that many witches and wizards do put down their wands for a few minutes every once in a while, while in the comfort of their own homes; the proper equivalent is forgetting to load the shotgun one keeps next to one's bed in case of burglars, not before going out into battle. One can't stay 100%-alert, 100% of the time - Voldemort caught them at a vulnerable moment and capitalized on it. Were they somewhat foolish for not enabling themselves a second's-notice escape path? Probably. But not so much that it seems out-of-character for what they had done already (refusing Albus as Secret-Keeper, for example).
    • Just to expand on this- 21 year olds *with a 1 year old*. I'm going to assume noone posting on here has yet experienced what life is like with a teething baby? This may not be the Potters having an uncharaciteristc epic fail. Sleep deprivation is a real and traumatic thing that leads to visual and audio issues, incomplete thoughts and lack of concentration beyond standard. Its one of the few things that Hollywood gets right (Think everything being washed out color in The Machinist)
    • Indeed I haven't, so I can only trust your word. Does it really degrade people towards Too Dumb to Live level?
    • Calling them relatively battle-hardened owned mostly to the fact that despite their young age they'd "defied Vodlemort thrice". Thrice. Don't you think that such an outstanding achievement requires quite a bit more awareness than that of a common wizard? Secondly, the shotgun-in-the-house analogy doesn't fly well with me, because shotguns are supposed to be kept unloaded and it would be indeed weird for somebody to drag one around their house all the time (much less weird, of course, if they are being hunted). But wands? They are not weapons, as much as, well, not exactly prosthetic limbs, but close. Yes, maybe wizards do put them away sometimes, although I can't conceive why would they, but for all the seven books we haven't seen a single time they do. Thus the coincedence strikes me as contrived. Now if V'd somehow influenced them to drop their guard, that would've been cool, but as it is, it's just a poorly executed Diabolus ex Machina. Finally, refusing DD as a Secret-Keeper was dumb, no doubt, but it could have at least some possible justifications: they didn't feel all that close to him, James wanted to cheer up Sirius after his break up with his family, by showing his deep trust and whatnot. But failing to enchant some suitable trinket, say, a bracelet that you can wear all the time, into a portkey activated when you tear it apart? What possible justification could be for that?
    • You graduate Hogwarts at age 18. They're 21. Therefore, they have been members of the first Order of the Phoenix for at least three years, at the height of the First Wizarding War. Anyone with three years of active combat service in wartime is "battle-hardened" and should act like it. In the real world we expect 21-year-old servicemembers to be able to lead squads (or if they're officers, platoons), fly planes, drive tanks, and serve in special operations units. Arguing from a standpoint of 'how competent can you expect a 21-year-old to be?' is not sound, because if they've got three-plus years in, the answer is 'we expect them to be professionally competent'.
    • Another thing is, I don't recall that you must have a wand in order to apparate and from V's recollection of the events he didn't bother to place any anti-apparition curses on the house. So...?
    • You must have a wand in order to Apparate.
    • Let's try to picture this from the Potters' perspective: James has just handed baby Harry over to Lily for bedtime when the front door gets Alohamoraed open and Voldy comes walking in. Realizing he left his wand on the table, he tells Lily to get out of there while he charges Voldy. Giving that James is one of the best in the Order, and is known to have an appreciation for Muggle things, he probably knows a bit about Good Old Fisticuffs and hopes to, at the least, buy Lily the time to escape and, and the best, surprise/stun Voldy long enough to grab his own wand and fight back. However, he gets A Kd in the hallway before he can do this. Lily likely had her wand on her but, having already started up the stairs and in the process of carrying their only child, likely went up them out of panic (completely forgetting that they likely had a back door), especially with the green light shining from downstairs. She'd probably planned to hide Harry in the nursery and fight back herself, but then Voldy gave her the ultimatum: "Move out of the way, let me kill the boy, and I'll spare your life." This triggered her Mama Wolf reflex and she instead went down fighting.
    • Indeed, let's shall. Where does it say, BTW, that James had any special appreciation for Non-Wiz things? Regardless, the question still stands. Where was Lilly supposed to run, according to James? Back door? I doubt you could escape even a regular burglar that simply, yet alone the frigging Voldemort. And who's to say he hadn't got the house surrounded? Also, Lily was no match for V and should've understood it. Escape was the only solution. So where was the emergency Portkey or whatever and lacking that what prevented her from apparating away?
    • OP of the above theory: I misremembered Sirius's appreciation for Muggle stuff, but James was shown joyriding with him in a short story, so I likely cast him with the same trait. As for James telling Lily to run, he might have indeed meant apparating or grabbing a portkey. Lily, holding a baby in her hands and watching her husband's body falling to the floor, could have simply had a basic human reaction and panicked, leading her to run upstairs to her death. Hell, it could have even been that curse that Voldy put on the Defense Against the Dark Arts position acting up to ensure that Harry was there to get 6 teachers removed from their positions.
    • What does it matter that she ran upstairs? Obiously an emergency portkey should be, well, portable, something you can carry around at all times, like a piece of jewelry. And how being upstairs would impede apparation? And don't tell me she didn't have time - she had time to barricade the door. And don't tell me she was too panicking either - she'd escaped V thrice by that moment. Baby or not, James killed or not - there's no way she wasn't prepared for this.
    • Portkeys are shown to come in two varieties in the Harry Potter verse: those that transport you at a certain time (i.e. the one that took everyone to the World Cup), and those that transport you when touched (i.e. the Goblet of Fire). Neither of those is designed to be portable for emergency use. If they had a portkey, and I agree that it would be the basest of stupidity for them not to, then Lily didn't get to it in time. Maybe it was hidden in Harry's room and she couldn't remember which of his teddy bears it was. And in the books it specifies that Apparation is something that many wizards and witches choose not to learn, as they prefer other methods of travel like Floo Powder and brooms over the dangers involved in Apparation. Maybe Lily simply never learned how. As for not panicking? There's a huge difference between confronting your enemy on a battlefield and having him blast open your front door and smile at your baby while standing on your husband's still-warm corpse. Panic is a completely understandable reaction to that.
    • Why not? Make a touch-portkey out of something small, like a coin, and then put it, say, inside a locket. If it cannot touch anything, suspend it in mid air. That is, if you cannot make a Portkey activated by an additional manipulation, like twisting or squezzing it and why not? Putting a Portkey in Harry's room (or rather every room) is also a good idea, but obviously it had to be something distinct and something you cannot grab by mistake or miss. I don't remember where it says that many wizards chose not to learn Apparition - adults apparate all the time and all the kids took the lessons in HBP, and why wouldn't they? Despite all dangers it is an infinitely more convinient way to travel, especially for an emergency. I absolutely refuse to believe that a member of the Order of Phoenix wouldn't master such an essential skill. Also, the escape routes are not limited to Apparition and Portkeys. There were also Vanishing cabinets. (you cannot confuse that for a teddy bear, can you), brooms and whatnot. And again, her initial panic is understandable, but after she runs up, she has enough time and sense to start barricading the door, meaning she ran through her options and there were none. And she was protecting her baby, shouldn't her Mama Bear instincts have trumpled the panic?
    • My statements about the Portkey were based entirely on what was in the books, with no further theorizing on my part (although I do like your ideas, if they are doable). As for why Lily wouldn't learn Apparition: during the Apparition lessons in HBP, it is said that there are many wizards and witches who never learn because of the dangers (the chance of appearing in the wrong place i.e. inside of a wall, the ever-present chance of splinching off some vital body part, etc) and also because other methods are just plain safer, albiet slower or more prone to interception. The Vanishing Cabinet is also a good idea, but its not something I'd put in my toddler's room. Actually, I'd have probably left that down in the living room which was, unfortunately, on the other side of Voldy. As for her Mama Bear instincts, she did keep herself (unarmed, apparently) firmly planted between her baby and the most evil wizard to ever live and, without batting an eye, offered to trade her life for her son's.
    • So are mine. What in the books made you thing you cannot make a small Portkey and put in a protective shell (coin in a locket)? Apparition: for regular wizards fine, but she was brilliant and a member of a paramilitary anti-terrorist organization. A chance to escape an ambush or promptly deploy to the field kinda trumples the possible dangers in my mind. Besides, the only people who ever faced those dangers were Ron (who's an idiot) and that Slytherin guy, who apparated ''inside Hogwarts''. Fred and George apparate all around all around the Burrow, and Molly only chastices them, because they abuse it. The Vanishing Cabinet: that is exactly why placing it in the living room is a bad idea - during an attack it will be the first thing to fall into enemy hands or at least will be under fire, whereas the second floor is the obvious retreat route, plus this is where the baby will most likely be when they are not together. Instincts: yeah, that's kinda my point. She wasn't panicking - she was desperate. Meaning she had no options. Which is what bugs me.
    • As I said, my theories about the Portkey were based on what was shown in the books, not what could be inferred about them. Besides, having reread the last book, it is said that Portkeys are monitored by the Ministry, which was known to have Death Eater's working undercover within its ranks during the war. Given that the house was protected by the Fidelius Charm, a Portkey was probably thought to be, at best, unneeded and at worst, a method of locating them. As for the lack of danger in Apparition, remember that it was Hermione (considered the brightest and most talented witch of her generation) that almost splinched Ron's arm off during their escape from the Ministry. Side-Along Apparition is considered the most dangerous form of wizard travel under normal circumstances, and it gets worse when you are emotionally compromised. Even if she would have been fine, baby Harry could have arrived minus a limb or two. Come to think of it, we never see anyone Apparate or use a Portkey within the confines of the Fidelius Charm. Perhaps that's a side-effect of the charm: it blocks unauthorized entry/exit by making you enter/exit through a certain spot each time. Keep in mind that when the Fidelius was on Grimmauld Place, you had to materialize on the front step and come in through the door, and when the Burrow was protected everyone kept popping up in the corn fields.
    • Well, they do carry Portkeys around, so they clearly don't need to be stationary. I just don't see how what I say contradicts what was shown in the books. But even with zero inference, fine, where were the stationary Portkeys? "Ministery monitors Portkeys" contradicts the events in Goblet of Fire, when Krauch created a Portkey, and nobody was aware of the act or at least of the true destination, depending on the interpretation. Why they suddenly do in DH? Who *cough*lazyandcontrivedplotdevice*cough* knows? Apparition may be dangerous, but even loosing a limb or two is better then dying, don't you think? Barring that there were still Vanishing Cabinets. Fidelius interfering with escape methods is a good point, but guess what, the Charm was broken!
    • No, the charm was not broken! Peter, as the Secret Keeper, is empowered to let others know what the secret is. He let Voldy know. Thus, the Charm was still on the house when Voldy arrived. It was still in effect in Deathly Hallows, since the Secret Keeper was still alive. As for the contradiction in monitoring Portkeys, Crouch made an authorized Portkey with an unauthorized stop. Dumbledore was told off by Fudge at the Ministry for creating an unauthorized Portkey, and that was why they couldn't use a Portkey to escape during the Battle over Little Whinging (because the Death Eaters had spies in the Ministry that would be watching for a Portkey at that address, as opposed to the ones that were used after the battle which were likely registered to the homeowners there). Also, the only Portkeys that are picked up without teleporting people around are either expended Portkeys (like the stack of used ones at the World Cup), or they are timed Portkeys that haven't hit their scheduled mark yet (like the one at the Tonks house after Little Whinging). Since the Fidelius was still in place, the only options for escape in a hurry would be to use a broom, a Vanishing Cabinet, or get outside the limits of the Charm. A broom would make them sitting ducks, and they wouldn't have planned on having the time to escape the Charm's field. As for the Cabinet, I raise this question: how long had the Potters been living under the Charm? Sirius implies that Peter betrayed them within 48 hours of being made Secret Keeper. It's likely that the Potters never needed a Cabinet before (being as they were no doubt skilled in Apparition) and, once the Charm was put in place, were probably waiting for one to be delivered in the event that Sirius was forced via torture to reveal who the Secret Keeper really was. No one expected a betrayal of the magnitude that was Peter's backstab, so they were unprepared for anything to happen that quickly.
    • Harry summons the portkeified Goblet that wasn't either expired or timed. "An authorized Portkey with an unauthorized stop" equals an unathorised Portkey. Fudge didn't chastize DD as much as weekly protested when he made an unathorised Portkey in fron of his very eyes. And there's one more mean of escape - House Elves! Unbound by the general rules, loyal, self-sufficient, capable of Apparating everywhere. THAT is whom they should've had.

    Amputating hand 
  • (This one was sparked by the movie, but applies to book and movie equally): Why didn't Dumbledore just have his hand amputated? Snape says the curse was spreading from the original infection, but mentions nothing about it metastasizing like a cancer.
    • Do you really think that a curse of such magnitude could be stopped by something as mundane as a knife? Exactly how Snape managed to "contain" the damage in one hand is unclear, but the magicks required were probably extremely complex, meaning that this would have been an incredibly risky move on Dumbledore's part. For all we know, lopping off the hand could have "released" the curse and allowed it to spread through his entire body, killing him almost instantly.
    • You know, what would've solved this Headscratcher nicely? Addressing it in the fraking book. You know, like in two lines of dialogue. Snape: "I've managed to contain the curse in one hand, but eventually it will spread. I say we cut it off now. I have just the spell for that!" DD: "Wait, Severus. We should first make sure it won't release it to ravage through my body instantly." One magical test later, Snape: "Oh shit, it totally will." You see? No room for ungrounded assumptions, confusion or terrible *cough*lousywriting*cough* suspicions.
    • Snape knows better than to suggest something like that because it would never work.
    • Harry only experiences snippets of memory, not a whole novella's worth of information. Snape knew he had only seconds to live, so he gave Potter the most relevant pieces only, not every word he and Dumbledore exchanged on any given subject. Most likely, Dumbledore stumbled into Snape's office after his injury or sent a Patronus to bring his Potion Master running, the two exchanged a few hasty words of explanation during harried triage, then Snape raced back to his potions classroom for supplies and ran back with them, whereupon the scene that Harry observes took place. Drastic options like amputation would've come up during that first frantic exchange that Harry missed seeing, when the two men determined what supplies Snape would need to arrest the curse's spread.

    Servant Dementors 

  • So, Only thing that can fight off the Dementors is a patronus. And, we learn in this book, that none of the Death Eaters (And, I suppose, not even Voldemort Himself) can conjure one. So, how is it a good idea to have servants you can't do ANYTHING against in case they decide to rebel and/or turn against you?
    • That's why they are not servants - they are allies. Their goals merely agree with V's ones (spread misery and death among Muggles), so they work together. And why would they turn on Death Eaters? D Es destroy those who can cast Patronuses, thus ensuring the free reign of Dementors. Besides, I don't remember anything actually forbidding D Es to cast Patronuses. Umbridge managed to cast one, so I guess evil happy thoughts work too.
    • I remember reading that Snape was the only Death Eater to be able to cast one, I think Word of God stated that. So, why would they ally with potentially undefeatable foe who would have no qualms to turn on you after anyone capable of harming them were out of the picture?
    • First, this is the same Word that stated, that "the wonderful and terrible power of heart" locked inside the Department of Mysteries was in fact a fountain of rape drug. I'd take everything that woman said with a bi-ig grain of salt. Again, if Umbridge managed it, I don't see why others couldn't. Second, what was their choice really? Dementors were already there, they didn't even need to be freed or summoned from hell or whatever. The options were either being their allies or their dessert. Also, if D Es weren't complete idiots, I guess they'd make sure they had some Patronus-wielders left to protect them. Besides, maybe V personally wasn't afraid of Dementors, having neither happy memories nor soul (almost) for them to suck, and, as was duly noted elsewhere, Voldemort doesn't give a shit about anything not called Voldemort.
    • According to Word of God, if a Dark wizard attempted to use a Patronus charm they'd accidentally summon a swarm of maggots that would devour them. So Umbridge being able to use it might indicate a TINY speck of goodness in her.
    • Riiiiiiiiiight. Let me remind that at that moment she was preceeding over a mock trial, tormenting innocent people, lying through her teeth all the time, threatening them with fate worse then death (or maybe even submitting some of them to it) and enjoing every moment of it. "Goodness" doesn't come in the same galaxy with her. And... seriously? Devouring maggots as a side effect of a Light spell? Thine God is trully mad, methinks.
    • It could be that Avada Cadavra can kill dementors, just like it kills everything else that's not love-shielded or a phoenix. Lupin does say that the Patronus is the only defense against them, but Avada is an entirely offensive spell. (And not one he'd resort to teaching Harry, obviously.)
    • A brief tangent: Could Voldemort be harmed by a Patronus? His soul is so fragmented and his mind so devoid of happiness and love that I would not have been surprised in the least if Harry had used a Patronus Charm to fight Voldemort. It would even fit in with the prophecy; he would have power that the Dark Lord knows not. This is said to be love, but even then, Harry's most powerful Patronuses (Patronii?) are when he's thinking about how happy the people he cares about make him. It stands to reason that a Patronus would have been able to mess Voldy up, if only a little. (I would not go so far as to think my fanboy theory would actually kill Voldemort, just hurt.)
    • A Patronus merely holds off and chases Dementors because it has no misery for them to feed off of, only hope. Voldemort doesn't feed off of emotion, therefore a Patronus to him would have done little more than obscure his vision for a bit.
    • Umbridge wasn’t a Death Eater and, though a terrible person and doing all those bad things mentioned like mock trials and sadistic punishments, that still doesn’t mean is pure evil, as in real life a lot of people has done very similar things and still we have evidence they have families and love ones who they treated with care and love (people like Pinochet, Margaret Thatcher, Ariel Sharon who did very cruel things, for example). As for Word of God note  she was probably trolling in the maggots part, but what she said about Snape been the only DE capable of casting a Patronus is consistent with what seen in-universe as Snape is clearly redeemable and Umbridge though very bad is not as evil as a Death Eater [again, a little like the difference between Margaret Thatcher kind of person and someone like Osama Bin Laden].
      • Pottermore says that Umbridge was able to conjure a Patronus because a firm conviction of the rightness of one's actions can supply the necessary happy thought. Whereas Dark wizards and witches are far gone and know it.
    • I seem to recall that when Snape was the DADA teacher he mentioned that there was another better way to fight a dementor than a Patronus. Granted, the "better" part was probably just to argue with Harry, but I definitely got the vibe that there were other ways to fight dementors. Maybe the Death Eaters used these.
    • The part about maggots devouring a dark wizard who was too compromised in some way to use a patronus is from the Wonderbook: Book Of Spells video game. It is technically canon but not something you can find out just by reading the Harry Potter books. Anyway, nothing is contradicted. Remus Lupin specifically states the patronus charms is the only known spell that stops dementors. Specifically, it is an anti dementor spell and, this also comes from material outside of the main seven books, it is a most ancient found on buried stone carvings older than the Latin language anti dementor spell. The dark wizard was commanding an army made of hundreds of dementors against a village when one of its inhabitants started driving them away with a mouse patronus. The Dark wizard, seeing how small this admittedly effective patronus was, thought he could defeat it by conjuring a larger patronus of his own and then maggots ate him alive. Whatever the reason for the backfire, this man clearly did not know how Expecto Patronum actually worked but getting to the point, he had no idea how expecto patronum worked but managed to bend dementors to his will anyway. Expecto Patronum is the only known spell that works on dementors but obviously there are others...assuming Mr. Dark Wizard wasn't using a dementor control potion or dementor dominating artifact, or a... The evidence in the source material suggests that these other methods, spells or otherwise, that Dark wizards use on dementors, methods that fall too deep into the realms of Dark magic for the general populace to know about. As for why expecto patronum backfired on him, given that he didn't really know what he was doing, he might have said "I call on a protector!" but actually performed "I am a horrible human being who should be eaten by worms!", given that the patronus charm is likely older than Latin itself.
    • Also, given that even the otherwise-beats-all-magic-protection Avada Kedavra can backfire in the right circumstances leaves open the possibility Mr. Dark Wizard had violated some unknown magical contract. It could be even simpler; that death by maggots is a potential consequence for "calling on a protector" against another "protector" and being deemed less worthy of protection. Maybe whatever he did to become a leader of dementors disqualified him from using the anti dementor spell? All these possibilities work with the premise he didn't know what he was doing. The magic system in the Potter series isn't well defined, but we know enough about it to draw some conclusions.

    Yaxley telling 

  • I'm confused as to exactly how Yaxley would have been able to tell other Death Eaters how to get into Grimmauld Place. Ok, As far as I can tell, the boundary of the Fidelius Charm is only on the interior of the house. I assume this because the Trio cannot Apparate from/to the interior of Grimmauld Place. They have to Apparate to/from the front step, under the Cloak. Therefore, when they Disapparated from the Ministry to Grimmauld Place, how were they able to take Yaxley 'past the boundaries of the Fidelius Charm?' In every other instance they Apparate onto the front steps. And if the Fidelius Charm extends to the front steps, why would they need the Cloak when standing on it?
    • Maybe he wouldn't be able to let the other death eaters inside, but just the fact that their location was compromised was enough risk: the death eater would be outside the house 24/7, waiting for them to go out for whatever reason. Or they would try to enter via other means, like House elf transportation.
    • But the Death Eaters already knew where the house was. They'd been hovering outside 24/7 for weeks, as far as I recall.
    • The G Olden Trio knew that Death Eaters were sitting on the bench, keeping a vigil for anyone who comes out of the Fidelius Charm's boudaries and thus revealing it's location.. All Yaxley has to do is run out the front door and *poof* the enemy knows exactly how to get inside.
  • It didn't seem like even they knew the rules behind it. All they knew was that there was now a bigger risk of the Death Eaters getting inside and now they knew for sure where the trio was hiding. I'd say Hermione made the right choice in abandoning #12 as their hideout.

    Patronus communication 

  • The Order communicates through Patronus. Did Snape never use this method of communication? Otherwise, it would be tricky to explain why his Patronus is the same as Lily's, unless no one in the order could put two and two together.
    • Word of God clarified soon after Book 7's release that Snape indeed never utilized the Patronus-communication trick, instead relying on less reliable but more circumspect methods of keeping in contact with the Order. Since he couldn't be expected to be sending out a whole lot of Patronuses while spying amongst the Death Eaters, this wouldn't have been too difficult for him to justify.
    • Even so I doubt that this would give away too much. Patronuses aren't unique. Remember that McGonagall and Umbridge both had the same Patronus and I doubt anyone thought anything about that. Dumbledore only realized the connection because he's a genius and he knew Snape loved Lily.

    Death Eaters at wedding 

  • Okay, either I'm being dumb here, or there is a pretty big plot hole, but how did the Death Eaters manage to get to the wedding? Wasn't the Burrow under a zillion protection and concealment charms?
    • They'd seized the Ministery by that point, and thus gained access to that powerful ward-breaking something of plot convenience the Ministery apparently had in stock.

    Timeline near the end 

  • The day the trio escape from Gringotts is the same day they Neville takes them to the Room of Requirement. However, on the trip through the passage there, Neville mentions that he's heard about the dragon escape, and specifically mentions that Terry Boot was told off in the Great Hall for yelling about the escape. However, firstly, Neville shouldn't have known about the escape, as it happened at most a few hours before the trio meet him. Secondly, even if Aberforth had got the Evening Prophet or something and told Neville about the escape, by then Terry would have been living in the room of requirement, and considering the need for the passage to the Hog's Head they obviously weren't eating in the Great Hall anymore.
    • "...by then Terry would have been living in the room of requirement..." - not necessarily. It stands to reason that some of the rebels would keep low profile so as to remain with the main crowd and provide intel to the "hard core". Apparently, such great knews warranted blowing his cover. Or maybe Terry didn't have anything to do with the resistance at all and just decided to announce the news to everyone.

    Expelling Harry 

  • Snape does all in his power during the 6 books to expel Harry from school. Fine, he hated him because of his father etc. But in the 7th book we learn, that he knew from the beginning that Harry was essential in defeating Voldemort and thus needed to remain in school. So, if he worked for the plan, why did he try to expel him?
    • Funny thing is, can you name a single occasion, when Snape actually does something to that end? I mean, actively, like framing Harry or manipulating him to break rules? He doesn't. Oh, sure, he's always there to gloat when the Scarhead screws up (which happens with the rough frequency of all the time) and threaten him with expulsion, and take away points, and give detentions, but that's pretty much it. And he can do it, precisely because he knows that Harry will never be expelled. As for why he does it, well, somebody has to keep the kid on his toes.
    • Why, exactly, does Snape need to keep Harry on his toes? Between the Dursleys' abuse, the fact that someone tries to kill him every year and there's an evil wizard out to kill him, Snape's antics seem a little petty.
    • Because the kid is reckless, shortsighted, and, honestly speaking, pretty dumb, and all DD does is condone that kind of behavior. So Snape, pointless as it may be, keeps reminding him that he is not in fact above the common rules, so that kid exercises at least some caution in shoving his head in the next meat-grinder he can find. Because hey, guess who ends up having to save his hide half the time? Sure, he could be doing it more efficiently, if his hatred to Marauders didn't keep getting in the way.
    • Harry's not dumb at all. He's a little lazy, yes, but he's proven time and again that he's clever when he puts his mind to it. He's also impatient and reckless, but he is a teenager. All teenagers are like that. They grow out of it. If Snape wants to be an effective teacher, it would make more sense to use patience and common sense rather than bulling tactics.
    • Ain't he then? I beg to disagree. Let's not get into each particular case herenote — they were all raised on the respective pages, few of them could be even somewhat justified, but it doesn't change the fact that the kid does AN AWFUL LOT of stupid shit, ever stupider and more destructive by the year (so much for "grow out of it"), as for being particularly clever or cunning...care to give an example, because I honestly cannot recall anything. And I can't help but blame DD for condoning and forgiving this irresponsible behavior (and Rowling, of course, for using this cheap device all the time to create drama) for the sake of indoctrinating the kid into being "his man through and through", which requires tons of positive stimula. Of course, even DD understands, that total impunity would kill the kid even more assuredly than V could, but he cannot get his own hands dirty, so the thankless job of being the negative stimula falls unto Severus (you don't seriously think DD couldn't restrain Snape, had he wanted to?), who a) is a horrible pedagogue (no argue here, he is), b) doesn't like the kid (or rather everything he represents) personally, and c) has to keep himself in Malfoy's good looks to remain DD's link to the udnerworld and thus cannot show affection to the kid even he wanted. Hence the heavy-handed tactics.
    • One at a time. He was eleven years old during the incident with the dragon. Not only that, he was an eleven year old who came from an abusive household. Snape had already proven to be untrustworthy. He hadn't even met Dumbledore yet and he had only met McGonagall a handful of times. Hagrid was the one who rescued him from the Dursleys. He was trying to keep Hagrid out of trouble. Yes, the responsible thing would be to tell an adult, but Harry hasn't had many trustworthy ones in his life and, again, he was a child. He shouldn't be expected to act like adult. I admit, the stunt with the car was stupid. One of Harry's character flaws is recklessness, but that is still no excuse for Snape to be a bully. And why would Harry admit to hearing voices that no on else could hear? There was no logical reason at the time to believe that there was a giant sn\nake in the pipes. Harry didn't tell anyone because he was afraid he was losing his mind. Anyone else would of done the same. Again, there was no reason at the time to believe the diary was that dangerous. Harry thought Riddle was misinformed about Hargrid being the killer. Ginny was the one who stole it back. I've mentioned this before, but teenagers aren't known for their common sense. If Harry had a few lapse in judgement, like the broom Sirius sent, it isn't anything to condemn him for. Snape does bear a lot of the blame for what happened in the shack for his inability to think clearly. He's the teacher, after all. The same goes for the pensive incident and training Harry in mental defenses. There was no excuse for such heavy-handed tactics.
    • *Sigh*Which is why I asked not to go into every particular case, but still funny how your excuses stopped short before the last and the most heinous acts of idiocy which, accidentally, were all committed by the ostensibly more experienced and "grown out of it" Harry. I rest my case. And I'm not "condemning" him for being stupid, at least not at first, I'm stating the obvious that a) he is, b) DD condones his stupidity, c) Snapes has to play the bad cop to keep him from going completely out of line. Sure, he's bad at it, but it was DD's decision to put him there.
    • Am I the only one who feels like I'm been lectured? Is like reading someone’s dad complaining about a teen-ager reckless behavior only missing the “IN MY TIMES!” Obviously every single character of fiction, particularly teenagers, can be hold accounted of a lot of terrible bad things, recklessness and stupidity, all these stuffs has to be taken in context on one hand, and of course if you focus only in the bad things and not the good things and the characters qualities, or the rationale behind some of the actions and the final results and you consider that a Headmasters job is to punish “that little brat” yes, is normal to feel angry toward the character. Also the fact that the books are aim toward children and teenagers. There’s a reason why headmasters are the villains in many works of fiction; the one who gives discipline is the bad guy in the minds of most teens [I remember it was in my mind, or maybe I was a rebellious teen], Dumbledore is not the bad guy, that role is accomplished by Snape. Of course you can put on the side of Snape, but very few kids… and I mean VERY few kids will.

    Living Horcrux dying 

  • OK, so the only way to destroy a Horcrux is to render it "beyond magical repair". Death counts as "beyond magical repair". So, what happens if a living Horcrux (e.g. Nagini, Harry) dies a natural death? Does the Horcrux inside them count as destroyed?
    • Most likely, their corpse would just continue to serve as a Horcrux. Just because their own soul left their body doesn't mean the Horcrux-creator's would; a dead body is still an object, after all. Presumably, said corpse would then be as immune to "conventional" destruction as the Locket or the Diary.
      • Then how come that the Nagini Horcrux was destroyed by merely decapitating Nagini, rather than destroying its body?
      • Because the Sword of Gryffindor had the power to kill the Horcrux too.
    • Or becoming a Horcrux makes them immortal except for things that can destroy Horcruxes, like Gryffindor's sword after it absorbed basilisk venom, if they are a proper Horcrux like Nagini. Harry wasn't a real Horcrux, merely an unintended container of part of Voldemort's soul. Without the rituals that go into Horcrux creation, he never had the invulnerabilities of one. In his case, simple death would probably destroy the piece of Voldemort's soul in him, as the Avada Kedavra curse, which is never mentioned as a means of Horcrux destruction, did.
      • If becoming a Horcrux makes you immortal, then why didn't Voldemort turn himself into one? Or, if it's impossible for him to make his own body his Horcrux, have someone else do it.
      • Making your body your Horcrux sounds a lot like... having your soul in your body, which is... what normal people already have. The entire point of having a Horcrux is that it protects you by storing part of your soul in another location, so you can't make yourself a Horcrux. Having someone turn him into a Horcrux would first require Voldemort to be willing to trust another person with the Horcrux secret, which isn't a thing, because Voldemort doesn't trust people. Then he has to be willing to actually store another soul inside him, which, let's be honest, he wasn't going to do - he shared bodies with people when circumstances forced it, and it would be temporary, but living his life like that? Nope. Voldemort hates relying on others more than absolutely necessary, and sure enough, none of his deaths were deaths that being a Horcrux would've saved him from.

    Muggle throne 

  • In the Ministry, there is a statue of a wizard and a witch on thrones made of muggles. How could they tell they were muggles since muggles and wizards look very much alike?
    • Muggle clothing. Except in the movies, in the books wizards don't dress like muggles.
    • The same way that you can tell that a fat, long-nosed person in Nazi propaganda is supposed to be a Jew. They were highly stereotypical and overexaggerated depictions of muggles, not true-to-life sculptures.
      • But what does a "stereotypical Muggle" look like? We know what Jewish stereotypes are like because they exist in the real world. Apart from their clothing, how do you distinuish between the features of a Muggle and a witch or wizard?

    Uncreative Death Eaters 

  • Is it just me, or are the death eaters terribly uncreative? I'm not just talking about the lack of guns, as is the usual complaint, but even on the magical side, they seem really, really unprepared. Every single battle tactic pretty consists of them charging in wands blazing and figuring out what to do during the battle itself. They've apparently never heard of buffing up before battle, something muggles managed to figure out with only a few years of computer games. In addition, we know that magic items exist in this series, but they are very rarely used. We know the death eaters are capable of raising inferi, but they never seem to use them during battle. There are so many fun uses for magic given in the series itself, but they never use any of it.
    • While some of them have no such excuse, many of the Death Eaters are depicted more as brutish thugs than brilliant masterminds. It wouldn't surprise me if many of them were incapable of casting even a simple Shield Charm, like all those Ministry employees who ordered Fred and George's hats. So they stick with what they know - which is running forward and shooting Avada Kedavra.
    • Perhaps V Oldemort knows enough about Muggle culture to understand the power of a good old fashioned Zerg Rush.

    Rita Skeeter and Veritaserum 

  • In her book, Rita Skeeter writes that "...Bathilda [was] well worth the effort I put into procuring Veritaserum..." When Snape introduces Veritaserum in the Goblet of Fire, he mentions that it's regulated by "very strict" guidelines. Rita Skeeter almost certainty gave Bathilda the potion without telling her. This is legal? If so, "very strict" guidelines allow people to drug each other for information? And if not, how does Rita get away with announcing it in a very popular book?
    • New regime didn't give a shit about such things, especially if it went towards creating slander against DD.
    • Possibly Veritaserum can be taken voluntarily by people who don't want others doubting their word. Not that Bathilda was necessarily mentally-competent enough to consent to such voluntary use, but Rita might've justified giving Veritaserum to her on those grounds, so far as her readers knew.
    • Rita Skeeter doesn't seem to have cared much about whether things were legal or not (cough*unregistered Animagus*cough)
    • Knowing Rita she'd probably write an article saying something like "The Ministry is too busy arresting harmless witches for petty crimes to go after Death Eater. Is this really the use the aurors are being put to?"

    Infiltrating Gringots 

  • The Trio infiltrates Gringots by using Polyjuice potion and throwing mind-controlling spells left and right. So Let Me Get This Straight.... The Ministry can instantly detect when a spells has been cast at a random location miles away down to knowing what spell exactly it was, but they cannot detect when a Unforgivable is being cast in their own bank? How is that possible? And why is the anti-polyjuice ward located so deep in the vaults instead of at the reception?
    • They're all of age (ie, 17). They're not being tracked anymore at this point. There's no indication they can detect Unforgivables (when cast by wizards of age), otherwise they'd kinda know some of their hotshots were being imperiused, right? And the goblins don't automatically assume every person who walks in their doors needs a bath with spell-breaking water, but once they suspect the person who just left for the vault is not who they claim to be, well then...
    • Well, yeah, that's the point. They can monitor the whole country for all spells, if they want, but they cannot monitor one small location, which is their frigging bank, at least specifically for mind-control spells? This is madness (or rather contrived plot convinience)! "And the goblins don't automatically assume..." - again, why not? It's security - it's supposed to apply to everyone. "but once they suspect the person who just left for the vault is not who they claim to be, well then..." then what? They let them in anyway, rather then detain and verify their suspicions on the spot? Can you imagine some important non-wiz facility where they would only have the detectors halfway inside instead of at the entrance?
    • They can't monitor "the whole country" for spells. They monitor for spells by attaching tracking bugs to individual wizards. Since none of the Trio were carrying any, they were not being monitored.
    • So, what prevented the bank management from attaching those "bugs" to the employees so that they could monitor what spells are being used in the bank? And again, why was the polyjuice-removing waterfall so deep inside instead of at the entrance?
    • OK, are you disputing the mechanics of how the Trace works? If so, note that my 'bugs' comment was not speculation; Mad-Eye explains it in the beginning of DH, at length. They're canon. Or are you just complaining that wizards (or goblins) don't make even remotely efficient use of their available tools? I'll 100% agree with that latter one.
    • The latter, of course. Or rather, as in most other cases, I am honestly curious if there was some legitimate in-universe reason for them to act this way, that I don't see, other than every last character simply being a brain-dead idiot for the sake of the plot. Because, unlike some... other works of fiction, there's surprisingly little aknowledgement of the fact, which makes me wonder.
    • The Trace may be a case of very old magic - something cast by the Ministry or its predecessors many centuries ago, which cannot easily be altered or removed because the original spell's parameters are lost to time. The Trio worry multiple times throughout the book whether Voldemort's regime might have figured out a way to extend the Trace past seventeen, but there is no evidence to suggest that such a thing is even possible.
    • Meh, technicalities. Have a minor serve in the bank as a living spell detector. Also, no, they don't raise that point even once, and why should they? The ability to detect spells cast in some random location would in no way help the Ministery find them, since they cannot see who casts the spell.
    • The bank is not controlled by the Ministry. It's owned and operated by goblins, who notoriously don't like wizards. Maybe the goblins don't want any ministry interference with their business? Many private businesses don't want governments interfering with how they run. Plus the enchantment breaking water was more of a extra security measure for the more "important" customer vaults. Kind of like how to get money out of a bank you don't have to pass to many checks, but to access a security deposit box you have to prove a lot more.
    • So, they are more ok with thieves waltzing in and stealing their shit with mind spells they have absolutely no protection from? And to get money from the bank you do have to, at the very least, present an ID (which, accidentaly, they don't do at all). Which means nothing if you can shapeshift. Which means placing the waterfall anywhere but the entrance is stupid.
    • These are goblins we're talking about here...Tricky folk. Remember what Griphook said would happen if anyone but one of them tried to get inside the vault where the Sorcerer's Stone was? Any alarms? Trapdoors, booby traps, or anything? Nope, you just get sucked inside and trapped there, with no way out but to hope that it's nearing the end of the ten-year gap in between vault checks. Seems perfectly reasonable to me if the goblins' mantra was: "You can go ahead and try to break into our bank. And maybe we'll let you in, but we'll make sure you don't get out afterwards." The only reason our three heroes were able to get in and back out again was because they had one of Bellatrix's hairs, an invisibility cloak that never fades and is immune to outside enchantments, two Gringotts goblins to get past the dragon, Hermione.
    • Yes, that sadistic (oh, I'm sorry, "tricky") trap and the dragon would've served as nice deterrents, IF it wasn't that bloody simple to Imperio "one of them" and have him do literally all the job for the thieves. By the way, there's no reason why Q&V couldn't have pulled the same trick with the Stone either.
      • Setting traps to deter thieves isn't being sadistic. And no one said the goblins were saints, either.
    • Deter - no, starve to death - yes, at least in my book.
      • Fine. Like I said, no one ever said they were saints. If you post warnings to deter people from thievery, you shouldn't really expect it to be held against you that much if someone chooses to ignore those warnings and tries to rob the place anyway. If they hadn't had that message posted in plain sight at the bank's entrance, I might understand your line of thinking a bit more.
    • It wouldn't have been as simple for Quirrell as it was for Harry and co., since the stone was in a very high-security vault that, evidently, only Dumbledore and Nicholas Flamel could get into. Unless Quirrell was able to find someone willing to Imperio every goblin in the room into letting him take the stone, whilst hoping that not a single goblin would find this suspicious, he would've had to have either gotten one of Dumbledore's or Flamel's hairs or Imperiused one of them to do the job, which I can't see happening. Whereas the goblins wouldn't have have figured anyone would be foolish enough to try and impersonate Bellatrix Lestrange, of all people, and go to so much trouble to break in when there was nothing of particular worth in her vault.
    • Hm, let's see. Back in "Stone" Hagrid comes to the bank and tells the manager that he needs the Stone. The manager leads him to the vault and opens it. Personally. There's no password that only Hagrid knows, no key that he brings with him, unlike for Harry's vault - as far as I can see, nothing that the very same goblin couldn't have done of his own (or someone's else) volition.
    • In case you forgot, and you obviously did, Hagrid came with a note to present to the head goblin, which was probably written by Flamel himself. The head goblin then called another goblin, Griphook (the same goblin who helps Harry break into Gringott's later, and who is most certainly not the head goblin), to bring them down to the vault. Not to mention, half-giants like Hagrid have increased immunity to most types of spells, and Polyjuice potion doesn't work properly when the subject of the transformation is non-human, meaning the goblins would've had a lot more reasons to trust Hagrid.
    • The point is, no input personally from Hagrid was needed to open the vault. No password, no key (which is odd, since he did have to present the key from Harry's vault). So please tell me what was stopping QV from sneaking in invisible and imperiosing that goblin manager to lead him to the vault and open it?
    • 1.) It's possible that's actually what he tried doing - a newspaper mentions that Gringott's was broken into the same day Hagrid retrieved the stone. 2.) He would still need an accomplice in order to cast the curse while he distracted the manager or distract the manager while Quirrell cast the curse, as well as an invisibility cloak or something similar to keep the other goblins from noticing. I also don't really understand your mention of no input being needed from Hagrid - if he had a note from the owner of the vault, why would he need anything more? (Also, again, he's impervious to magic and unable to be Polyjuiced - the goblins would know that he's the real deal.)

    Snatchers trusting Malfoys 

  • When the snatchers snatch the Trio, they are reluctant to take them to the Ministry, so they don't get cheated out of their reward. And since they cannot call V directly, they decide to take the kids to the Malfoys who can. So they are afraid to go to the Ministry, the one organization that has to keep at least a pretense of legitimacy, that has apparently hired them for this job and that will have tons of witnesses to their arrival and claim. And instead they are going to a secluded domain of V's disgraced second-in-command... ... ... What did they think would prevent Malfoys from just killing/stunning them and taking all the honor to themselves, like, big shock, was exactly how it happened?! Evil may not comprehend Good, but you'd think it would at least comprehend another Evil, wouldn't it?
    • They brought Harry to Malfoy Manor because they knew it was Voldemort's current base of operations and they thought he would be there for them to present Harry to him, having no knowledge of his search for the Elder Wand. Plus, the snatchers seem to be after some sort of concrete reward for bringing Harry to Voldemort - the Malfoys just want to get back into his good graces, following Lucius's failure at the Ministry and Draco's ineptitude at killing Dumbledore.
    • Yes, excatly. This is why it's obvious they would want the credits for capturing Harry for themselves. As for the first, nope, that's not what Grayback says. He says that he cannot contact V due to the lack of Dark Mark (because of course V couldn't have possibly supplied them with another mean of communication), so they should bring them to Malfoys who have the marks and can contact V.
    • I've gone back and checked the book, to be sure - no one ever says that they're bringing him to the Malfoys to call Voldemort. Greyback starts to say that he doesn't have the mark, stops short, then says that Voldemort is using Malfoy Manor as a base and that they should bring the trio there. And when they get there, they tell Narcissa that they're there to see You-Know-Who. They clearly thought that he was already there.

    Trap at Gringotts 

  • Moreover, if V is that farsighted and good at anticipating his enemies' moves, why isn't there a trap in the Gringotts? After learning how much Bella freaked out over it in front of them (and surely he'd demand explanations for what happened from her) he wouldn't even need to realise the true nature of their quest to suspect that they might want to check the bank out. And yet, with days or weeks to prepare, they only put together some half-assed protection means.
    • To be fair, the trio barely got out of Gringotts alive, and getting the cup informed Voldemort they were after the horcruxes. I would say it worked out pretty well.
    • There's a difference between regular security (even if tightened) and a dedicated trap. This clearly was not the latter.
    • Setting up a better dedicated trap in Gringotts would only draw suspicion to the Lestrange vault.
    • Draw it from whom, exactly? Goblins?
    • Because even Voldemort thinks twice about trying to do anything that would piss off the goblins that control the entire financial system of the wizarding world? Even an Evil Overlord needs a a bank account, and trying to pull any tricks against Gringotts is a good way to find yourself Knutless.
      • I don't know, I'd say he handled himself against them pretty well when he found out the trio stole the cup. I doubt he was afraid of pissing them off.
    • Check the scene when he interrogates the goblin after the heist. That goblin is properly terrified of him, and then V murders him without a second thought. Also, why would setting a trap piss off the goblins? It is meant to prevent a heist, so if anything, goblins should sympathise.

    Second chapter 

  • Is it just me, or does the whole second chapter make absolutely no sense at all, from start to finish, on more levels than one?
    • First. Why did Harry have to return to Dursleys? He knew the protection would dissolve in July, so he'd have to relocate anyway, he didn't do anything useful in all the time he spent there, he was fine in the Burrow and later at Grimmauld Place and even when he left for his quest, so what was the point in spending more time with people he didn't like and subjecting them to extra danger?
    • Nevermind subjecting the Dursleys to extra danger, Mad-Eye and Hedwig would still be alive and George would still have his ear.
      • Because the Death Eaters no-question could not get anywhere near Harry so long as he called the house on Privet Drive his home. They wanted to keep the best protection possible over him and for the longest time possible, which also allowed for them to spend more time casting protective enchamtents over other locations to take him to later.
      • Oh, that's right. I mean they only had meager seventeen years to do that, no doubt that extra month was crucial.
    • He had to return because the blood protection isn't just for Harry, it's also for Petunia and Dudley Dursley. And even if him not returning wasn't necessary to keep that protection running, Harry's about the only person who can convince the Dursleys they need to go into hiding when it reaches its absolute limit.
    • Second. V decides that they have to take Harry out before he's transferred to the new hideout, because even V wouldn't be able to reach him there. Uhm, what does it matter? The kid is not some artefact that the Order can store in the hideout and use him there. To present any threat to V whatsoever, Harry would have to leave the hideout. Moreover, if the Order could arrange for a safe hideout without the Dursleys, why did they not arrange for it twelve years ago?
    • Third. V's puppet at the Ministery adopts a law against using Floo, portkeys and Apparition inside Dursley's house. Ok, let's say the Order creates a Portkey. What's the Ministery going to do about it? As demonstrated by Dobby, they cannot detect who exactly casts the spell near a minor, and as demonstrated by Crouch Jr., they cannot detect the destination either, so whom and how were they supposed to arrest for it? How would they get to the house to arrest anybody with the Blood Wards on it? With the Apparition it is even worse. "Ahah! The Trace shows that Harry Potter was Apparated by an unkown person in unkown direction!... ... ... Well, drat."
    • Alternately, even if you can somehow trace Apparition or Portkeys, just Portkey Harry somewhere with a wide variety of further travel options. Such as 'A-ha! We have followed the trail... to a Metro station. Now what?'
    • Fourth. What's up with that asinine escape plan? Couldn't Harry just put on his Cloak of Invisibility and walk/fly away? Or use Polyjuice to turn into someone else, while the Death Eaters focused on the fake Harrys? Why didn't he just hide in the Dursley's car or disguise himself as Dudley for a day?
    • Smuggling Harry out like that, visible or not, disguised or not, would've caused the protective wards around the Dursleys' home to drop immediately. There was no advantage to be had in concealing his departure when the Death Eaters could discern the exact instant he left Privet Drive for good.
    • What? Where does it say that? They've been smuggling him out half the times and another one he ran away, and somehow the wards endured. Besides, what would it matter? They didn't capture Dursleys, did they, meaing the car was concealed from them. No reason for Harry not to be there.
    • If Harry leaves Privet Drive with the intent of never returning, the wards collapse, its said in-story. This still does not prevent them from using a combination of invisibility and physical transportation, though — even in the story they have enough time to get well up into the air and away on brooms before the Death Eaters attack, so there's at least several minutes of lag time between 'Harry leaves the grounds' and 'the Death Eaters are alerted that he has'. Imagine if an invisible Harry had flown away on a Disillusioned broom instead of being surrounded by highly visible decoys... what, exactly, are the Death Eaters going to do about it? He could fly all the way to Ottery St. Catchpole like that and they're hardly likely to intercept him if they can't see him, especially at night.
    • Now that I think of it, scratch leaving under the Invisibility Cloak. What exactly was preventing Dobby or some other elf from whisking Harry away from the house without all that contrived "7 Potters" bullshift, since as we've seen back in "Chambers" they can not only Apparate into protected areas, but also conceal their Apparation from the Ministery.
    • Dobby was under the employ of Aberforth Dumbledore and Hogwarts at the time. The Order probably had never met him yet, and they don't run Hogwarts so they couldn't just summon any house-elf from there.
    • Even if they hadn't, DD obviously had, and it would've been strange and stupid for him not to introduce such a valuable ally (or Aberforth himself, for that matter) to the Order. Regardless, HARRY surely knew about Dobby and his abilities.
    • Aberforth wanted nothing to do with the Order, as he said so when we meet him. As for Dumbledore, he was dead before he could start taking a hand in Harry's evacuation.
    • *sigh* DD knew he was going to die for an entire year and make all the arrangerments in the world. Aberforth's feelings for the Order have absolutely nothing to do with asking Dobby for help - he is a free elf.
    • All the questions of whether the Order knew of Dobby rather moot, because surely the Order had access to other house-elves. The real question is, was there some reason that house-elves couldn't have apparated Harry out, or were the Order just idiots and didn't think of them?
    • When you know of any other house elves that they had, tell me. The Weasleys don't own any. Moody, Lupin, and Kingsley don't. Etc.
    • Etc what? Hogwarts had a lot of house-elves emloyed, and the school was under the Order's control at that time.
    • And not just some other house-elves - a very specific house-elf, who was obliged to answer Harry's summon and obey his every command, and of whom the Order definitely knew - Kreacher. And please don't say something like "the Order couldn't trust him" or "Harry wouldn't want his help after what he'd done to Sirius". Just don't.
    • Why not? Harry only used Kreacher for one task during the previous year, and made no use of Grimmauld Place during then. His aversion to both probably made them slip his mind. The Order clearly wasn't using Grimmauld Place anymore either. They must have thought Kreacher made the place unsecure since he had already leaked some info to the Malfoys. He could have possibly leaked more if they stayed around him.
    • What "stayed around him"? Summon him, have him teleport Harry, forbid him from mentioning the incident ever again to anyone, send him back to Hogwarts. Done.
    • Fifth. Even within the scope of that asinine escape plan they somehow managed to make it more retarded. If they decided to turn people into Potters to confuse the Death Eaters and discourage them from using AK, why didn't they turn all of themselves into Potters? Wouldn't it make for more confusion and discouragement?
    • It's probably because the real Harry Potter needs some protection from the Death Eaters in case they do go after him, so having that many Potters would mean that he would either have no protection or be the only one with protection. Either way is too risky since the Death Eaters would know he is the most well protected Potter.
    • What do you mean? The'd still go in pairs, of course, and would cover each other.
    • First off, Hargid couldn't have taken the potion, being half-giant, and he was the one who'd been paired with Harry. Having six pairs of Harrys flying together and then one Harry with a half-giant would've made it that much more obvious who the Death Eaters should be going after. Having each Harry paired up with someone different helps to direct them off the real Harry's trail - for example, I'm pretty sure it was said that they went after Moody and Mudungus first and foremost, due to thinking that the most experienced Auror would have the real Harry travelling with him.
    • Ok, DON'T pair Hagrid with Harry then. Actually, don't do that period, since he sucks at magic and cannot do anything to protect him (anyone can press buttons on the motorcycle). Had it been literally anyone else, they could've simply side-apparated him away once they left no-apparation zone of Harry's home.
    • I'm not sure what difference that would've made...In addition to being an intentional diversion, Hagrid's half-giant status also gives him a greater resistance against many types of magic. Even Moody went down at once after he got hit with the Killing Curse...In short, everything in the second chapter had to happen like it did because Harry was still underage. He can't Apparate without the Ministry (and the Death Eaters within it) finding out through the Trace. Even once the Trace runs out on his birthday, then the protections over Privet Drive disengage also, meaning he can't wait til then - the Death Eaters would be on the house in an instant. Thus, he had to be escorted manually using any means and methods the Trace couldn't detect.
    • Use an elf for side-apparation. They cannot detect those. And even if they do, who cares? There was never any indication they could detect where he was apparated to. And even if they can, who cares? They had a hideout prepared that even Voldemort admitted was beyond his reach. "the Death Eaters would be on the house in an instant" - and he would be away in an instant. So? "he can't wait til then" - wait until a few moments before the deadline, and side-apparate him to a random location. Even if the Ministery can trace him, they'd have to have at least some reaction time. Keep jumping to random locations until the Trace dissipates and they can safely jump to the destination. "Hagrid's greater resistance" - Uhuh. Whould it help against, say, a big rock, let alone something sharp, thrown at him? Didn't think so.
    • Apparation - if apparating involves teleporting from one place to another, it wouldn't surprise me if the Ministry would be able to tell where Harry apparated to in addition to where he did so from. It also wouldn't surprise me if the Trace were able to bypass whatever enchantments that had been placed over the Burrow. Wait until a few minutes before - if the above is true, then they'd still know where he'd apparated to even if it took them until after the Trace had expired to react. Hagrid - true, but the Death Eaters wouldn't have come prepared with those because Hagrid was only one possible target, travelling alongside seven others. And they also might not have known giants or half-giants were resistant to magic. Using an elf - maybe they couldn't have gotten one? And who said house-elf apparation was undetectable?
    • "then they'd still know where he'd apparated to" - hencewhy the addition of "Keep jumping to random locations until the Trace dissipates". "maybe they couldn't have gotten one" - O'Rly? Dobby, Kreacher, the entire Elf-staff of Hogwarts. "And who said house-elf apparation was undetectable" - Rowling did. In "Chamber" they detect Dobby's levitation spell, but not him apparating away. And even if it wasn't, with the above evasion tactic it doesn't matter.

  • Now that I think about it, how did the Death Eaters even manage to pass that ban on apparition and portkeys inside Harry's house? Yes, they infiltrated the Ministery, but the Minister of Magic himself, Scrimgeour, was a good guy (a jerk, sure, but still, strongly opposed to Voldemort). The ban makes no sense - if Voldemort could get to Harry through any of those means, he would've done it in the previous two years. He didn't, meaning it's safe, and besides, even if you argue that incoming apparition is a security risk, it says nothing about outcoming one, does it? So, how did they pass this nonsense around Rufus, and if they did in secret, why did noone in the Order contact Scrimgeour about it?
    • Here's the best explanation I can come up with — we can surmise that the Ministry has the means of banning Apparation even if it's done by house-elves, or else they'd have a pretty hard time keeping the people locked up in Azkaban from calling on their house-elves and using them to escape. So just assume that they took whatever foolproof wards they have over Azkaban and cast those same wards over Harry's house. As to why those wards were there, it's because if they weren't, then any random Death Eater could disguise themselves as one of the good guys, go to Privet Drive on the night that Harry is to be evacuated, and then Apparate him directly to Voldemort to be killed. With the wards in place, no one can take Harry anywhere without someone else knowing about it, especially when he's with Hagrid, who can't Apparate or be impersonated with Polyjuice.

    Secrecy 

  • Why didn't the "good guys" inform the non-wiz population about the Death Eater threat? I'm not even talking specifically about involving the non-wiz military, although that as well, - but just in general, you'd think people have a right to know when they are being targeted by genocidal terrorists, so they might at least make a choice to stay or flee. The nonwiz-borns were given this choice, so why was the rest left to rot? I can kinda understand keeping the secrecy in previous books, when the situation was still under control-ish, but now the "good guys" have lost (yeah, I know, Harry Potter is still out there, whooptidoo, that's not an excuse), have the dignity to admit it and pass the torch! And yet the idea of breaking the masquerade isn't addressed once, despite all the casualties it had caused.
    • Given the reprecussions that would ensue from bringing in the Muggles, it's likely they were hoping to unite a force from other countries in hopes of taking down Voldemort after Harry's "death". If the Muggles are brought into the fight, then there's no going back. Centuries of protecting their world from the threat of Muggle extortion and persecution would be thrown out the window. As long lived as Wizards tend to be, it's likely that they are only a couple of generations removed from the witch-hunts of Salem and England, so this isn't a historical event for them; it's a legitimate danger that could, in the long run, be more dangerous than Voldemort is.
    • And meanwhile hundreds or thousands of people suffered and died for that hope, which was, by the way, completely ungrounded, since they had two years after V's return had been recognized by the authorities, and there was absolutely no indication of any foreign involvement (not that there was any during the first incursion). So, sorry, but I'm not buying it. They've lost, and they had to know it. And yet they left the non-wizes to burn. Which brings me to this: if from the point of view of "good guys" the non-wizards were worse than Voldemort, then what were the Death Eaters wrong about in their determination to oppose those monsters rather than cowardly hide under the bed and hope that the monsters wouldn't find them like the "good guys" did?
    • Well if I was a wizard I truly be much more afraid of Muggles knowing wizards exist than of Voldemort, but that aside, considering that the Secrecy is an international thing, and not just something that is practice in the UK, giving away the existence of wizards would mean that every magical community in every single country will be expose, not only the British one so disregarding the possibility that other countries may not allow that [and I can imagine the magical ministries of other countries intervening to keep the Masquerade] they’ll be affecting the magical community worldwide out of protecting the lives of only the British Muggles. Assuming that the British wizard community is willing to do that, wouldn’t that cause mass hysteria and panic that will probably not only cost much more lives (I can imagine Muggles killing each other thinking that the Wiccan neighbor is a Death Eater) but would also probably make a lot harder to fight the Death Eaters as they will also have to deal with the panic. And finally, exposing the existence of wizards to muggles may simply made the Death Eaters and especially Voldemort say; “screw it, now we rule the world and muggles are our slaves, there’s no reason to be discrete now that they know our existence, prepare the ovens for the muggles that do not comply!”
    • "I truly be much more afraid of Muggles knowing wizards exist than of Voldemort... I can imagine Muggles killing each other" So, even more fuel to the "what were the Death Eaters wrong about" sentiment then. "other countries may not allow that" - unless they got off their asses and actually helped, I don't see what say they have in the matter. It'd be a nice bargaining chip: start pulling your weight, or we're blowing the lid of it all. "make a lot harder to fight the Death Eaters" - implying that someone was fighting them in any meaningful way? Weird, I must've missed those parts. "prepare the ovens" - Well, nothing was stopping them from doing it anyway once they felt secure in their rule, so what real good did stalling do? Also, as history showed, massacring unsuspecting people is way easier, and the need to be "discreet" poses very little, if any, obstacle.
    • If the Death Eaters think that humans are violent and can be subject of mass hysteria and chaotic social behavior very easily… well then, yes, the DE are right, at least on that particular regard. As we have seen over and over from how humans massacred Jews during the Black Plague accusing them of causing it and killed cats because they were “devils” when they were the natural predator of the rats that carried the disease thus making it worst, or the Witch Hunts in Salem, or the Mccarthism in the US, or the recent riots in some US cities after a cop shoots someone, or the many examples in the third world when a government falls and they end in anarchy (Yugoslavia, Congo, Yemen to mention some), so yes, Wizards in general and not only Death Eaters have all the reasons to believe that if Muggles know about the existence of wizards panic would happen. And, OK, disregarding all the lives of Muggles that will be lost during the panic and when, again, the neighbors killed all the Goth kids and the destroy the local New Age store, then what? How is that gonna help them defeat Voldemort? And once the war ends, what? How are they gonna manage the fact that Muggles are gonna put Wizards in labs to study them, if they are lucky.
      And yet again, the international community. Yes, let’s assume that the British wizards are bastards and are willing to blackmail the rest of the countries to intervene in an internal affair that only affects British and only British are to blame for, otherwise they’ll out the entire world wizard population. Fine, I’m pretty sure Wizards in Germany or France won’t have so much trouble having probably just to handle the annoying request from neighbors, but what about the Wizards in Africa or in the Islamic world that most probably will be PUT TO DEATH. We have real life cases of people killed in the 21st century Africa for been accused of Witchcraft.
      Finally, even if the Muggles know about the existence of Wizards and that one of them is a megalomaniac monster that wants to kill them… what? Muggles can’t do anything against Voldemort not have any real practical way to defend themselves from DE other than beg and hide.
  • Most of Britain's magical community is conservative to the extreme. Conservatives, by definition, largely want things to stay the same. The Death Eaters are radicals aiming to upend the status quo. All clues given to the reader suggest magical communities have largely not ruled nor lorded over muggle populations even when they were open about what they were. Wizards are not only largely non religious, and so wizard logically have no royalty, as in positions claimed by divine right. Despite great capacity for stealth and brainwashing, the magical law requires relevant muggle authorities be informed of major happenings. The response to muggle oppression is largely withdrawal, rather than counter oppression or annihilation. The response to further muggle encroachment is intermarriage. However the average wizard feels about muggles, they don't believe violence and suppression are valid solutions, Death Eaters do. And it's not just muggles. Death Eaters also have very different stances on werewolves, giants, dementors and more extreme views on house elf slavery. For comparison, the majority of Europeans simply did not like Jews, and as of 1990, most probably still disliked Jews. But camps specifically set up to exploit and exterminate them on an industrial scale was not what most Europeans had in mind. The very knowledge of their existence caused not just Europeans but several communities to rethink their stance on Jews, ultimately lead to decline of racism as a socially acceptable viewpoint on the grounds that could be a possible conclusion of it and forever vilified Nazis as a standard to live above.

    Potter motto 

  • "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death". As sympathetic as Hermione's explanation is, this still doesn't make any sense. The Potters' lives revolved around defeating a man whose main motivation was immortality and they probably knew it very well if Dumbledore was anywhere as open with them as he was with Harry- even if he wasn't, the Death Eaters are a pretty good clue. Why on earth would they put that motto on their headstone?
    • Because it wasn"t chosen by James and Lily, is why. It was probably the family motto for decades before Riddle was even born.
    • Maybe the emphasis is on "last"? As in, it is the last thing that you should worry about when fighting other, more important enemies?
    • It ties back into the symbolism of the line. "The last enemey that shall be destroyed is death" doesn't refer to living forever; it refers to accepting that death comes to us all and, thus, no longer fearing it. If you no longer fear death, then what can hold power over you from then on? Besides, they were fighting an army called the "Death Eaters". Perhaps some poetic license on the Potters' part?
    • That's not the Potter motto, as ancient as the wizards claim to be the Potter family may have existed before that term was coined but it's been around far longer than Voldemort and was coined by muggles. It basically means all things will come to an end, all will be destroyed, or "die" until even death itself will die, then Earth and Heaven will be remade anew where the righteous dead will live again in new bodies and justice will rein supreme. You can read all about it one of the few books to rival the success of Harry Potter series, The Bible, specifically the "New Testament". It makes sense that Harry wouldn't get it, he's been in wizard world for seven years now and wizards are largely non religious. His muggle guardians didn't raise much for the nine formative years he was with them so Harry's not picking it up there either, but Lilly was a muggle born loved by her parents, so it wouldn't be surprising if she knew of such things through Pop Culture Osmosis. It also makes sense Hermione knows it, because she's going to read such books on principle.

    More horcruxes 

  • What exactly prevented V from simply making more Horcruxes?
    • Body Horror, for one thing. Each Horcrux kept making V turn more and more into the hairless red-eyed snake man that he became, and even more might end up robbing him of something vital, either organ or limb. Hermione also mentions that the book that said how to make Horcruxes mentioned it had the side effect of making your soul extremely unstable, which would escalate with Voldy because each time he has less soul to split apart. By the time he attacked baby Harry, his soul was unstable enough that he created a Horcrux without realizing it. Making more after that might have had his soul flying to pieces at the slightest touch.
    • Did he even a) know and b) care about it? After Harry he made another one from Nagini, and was fine (well, not notably worse than before).
    • Of course he knows, he read the same book as Hermione. If those side effects worsened after he made Nagini into a Horcrux, well, WMG mode here, but one could argue it's the reason why he was so frequently arrogant and Villain Ball clutching at times, such insisting only HE kill Harry. It's not definitely proven, but having less soul possibly could mess with your intelligence, if not sanity.
    • It is most likely is, although V's insanity and stupidity is so glaringly inconsistent I call Plot-Induced Stupidity. But nevertheless, that's my point. If his sanity was suffering form unrestrained horcruxing so much, would he really care by that point about the consequences of making more? He didn't know just how unstable his soul became, did he.
    • Even while insane, he was still hoping to benefit from having only seven Horcruxes and thus being blessed from the magical properties associated with seven. Maybe if he had managed to stop Harry soon enough after learning the boy was hunting for his Horcruxes, he might have tried to make replacements.
    • Well, after he found the first vaults ransacked, he had to know he had less then seven - you'd think he'd want to restore the pool before the final battle. Even much earlier he had already known that the diary had been destroyed! Why wouldn't he want to replace it?
    • He may simply not have been able to make any more. It's suggest that the main soul remains as damaged as before when a horcrux is destroyed: producing the set he did may simply have left Voldie down to the last dregs possible to keep his body running.

    Aberforth and his goats 

  • On the subject of "Aberforth and his goats", mainly the "inappropriate charms" he was persecuted for using on them. Ok, the conclusion that the Internet jumped to does not surprise me, since, well, Internet. What makes me scratch my head is, was that actually the conclusion Rowling herself implied? I'm judging by that reported answer she gave to a 8-year girl who'd asked her about it. It sounded like it totally was, what with Rowling acting like she was caught completely off-guard, asking the girl how old she was (because what, if the girl was older, she'd tell her the horrible truth?) and then hastily blubbering some incoherent nonsense about "keep clean, curly horns", and ending it with "So, that is my answer to YOU." What was up with that? Not only was it ridiculously easy to come up with a safe and sane answer, like that he made the goats tap-dance in front of non-wizards, or charmed them so that their coat grows extra fast and thick, but clothing made out of it would give the wearer a terrible itch, or something like that. But even if we assume the worst, what was that "inappropriate charm" even supposed to be, that it warranted persecution? Restraining them, making them more... responsive, changing their anatomy, what?! Seriously, I wonder what went on in that woman's mind when she wrote it.
    • Probably she was making a throwaway joke and did not think that some people would overthink it to ludicrous degrees. Jokes about molestation of farm animals are as old as the hills that that molestation is carried out amongst in the UK. The answer to the kid was probably her being caught off guard that someone asked it and having to come up with an answer on the fly that preserved both the girl's innocence and the joke for the older readers.

    Half-giants and polyjuice 

  • Hagrid can't take polyjuice potion because he's half-giant. HOWEVER... Fluer is part Veela (her grandmother) and takes it without a problem.
    • (Half-)Giants are resistant to magic.
    • Also, when exactly was it stated that half-giants could not take Polyjuice potion? Lupin said that the potion was made for transforming into humans. When Hermione used cat hair by mistake, it had bad side-effects and was certainly not an exact transformation. Lupin did not question Hagrid because he knew Hagrid (being half-giant) couldn't be a (human) Death Eater in disguise. So, to sum it up: non-humans can take Polyjuice, but it can only turn someone into a human. That is why Fleur could take it.
    • Or it's because Fleur is only 1/4th Veela, thus, she's human for the most part, whereas Hagrid is split cleanly down the middle between human and giant.

    Horcrux timeline 

  • Why did AK destroy horcruxes in '98, but not in '81? Harry became a horcrux when his mother died, not after he'd "defeated" V.
    • Harry is an accidental horcrux, so the method of creation doesn't have to conform to standard. Apparently, Voldemort's 'loosened' soul fragment didn't come entirely loose and 'stick' to Harry until after Voldemort's soul was removed from his physical body by the destruction of said body... i.e., when his AK backfired.

    Infiltrating Murmengard 

  • How is Voldemort able to infiltrate it to interrogate Grindelwald so easily? All he has to do is fly in through the window, it seems. I get that he probably breached the magical defenses of the place when Harry wasn't paying attention, but aren't there any guards? Grindelwald's been here over fifty years – if nothing else, there's got to be someone bringing him food and water. And in that case, how does no one detect activity in Grindelwald's cell when Voldemort comes calling; you'd think there'd be some sort of charm or whatever to alert the guards of someone using magic, since they're going to want to keep the man who wreaked havoc throughout Europe locked up? And even if there's no such spell, or it's waned after half a century – does no one hear them? Voldemort's yelling and (presumably) torturing Grindelwald, and Grindelwald's laughing and shouting right back – they're not exactly being quiet here, so, what? Or, there are guards, they do hear, and they let Voldemort torture and kill Grindelwald anyway, then let him escape? Even if they don't care about Grindelwald enough to intervene in his torture/death, surely they'd at least make an effort to stop Voldemort getting away; I know Voldemort's implied to keep his reign to England, and Nurmengard's in Germany or Eastern Europe, but they must know who he is, right? So – what?
    • Quite a few possibilities. There's a spell that muffles sounds, so maybe V used that. Maybe there're weren't any guards, because it's been 50 years since G'd been a threat, so nobody bothers guarding him anymore, and chores like food delivery and waste disposal can easily be done with magic. Or maybe there were guards, and they knew what was going on and who V was, and stayed away for that exact reason - because they weren't going to get themselves killed for G's sake.
    • This is Voldemort we're talking about! Throughout the series it's been clear that if Voldemort wants something badly enough no matter the magical protections he'll find a way to get to it. Both he and Dumbledore (and Grindelwald for that matter) are so powerful that the usual rules and limits to magic don't always apply to them. Remember when Dumbledore assured Fudge that were he be sent to Azkaban, he'd easily break out even if he was wandless and heavily guarded by dementors.

    Information 

  • Moreover, how has Grindelwald managed to stay so informed? Is some guard bringing him newspapers or something? I mean, he knows who Voldemort is, what he's capable of, and that he's the sort of dude to go after the Elder Wand – he also doesn't tell him about the Wand to protect Dumbledore's tomb, and to do that, he's got to know Dumbledore is dead. How? For a guy who's been in jail for more than fifty years, he knows more than Harry!
    • What's so weird about him being allowed newspapers?.

    Destroying a horcrux 

  • In Deathly Hallows, we learn that it's a pretty rare thing that can destroy a Horcrux. Basilisk venom, the Sword of Griffyndor after it's had basilisk venom pumped through it, Fiendfyre, and an AK from the Elder Wand. So, since Voldemort wasn't the first wizard to create a Horcrux, just the first to make multiple Horcruxes, what happened to all the Dark Wizards before Voldemort who made Horcruxes, but people didn't know how to destroy?
    • Unless they knew how to recreate their body, they lingered around as a spirit forever. But the fact that it's recorded how to destroy a Horcrux must mean that someone has destroyed one, especially if it lists multiple ways to. So they likely could be dead for good.
    • Where is it recorded how to destroy a Horcrux? It was a big chore to even learn what a Horcrux was, and they had to learn how to destroy one through trial, error, and accident.
    • It was recorded in the book Hermione got from Dumbledore's library. That's how she knew basilisk venom and Fiendfyre could destroy one.

     Goblin Horcrux? 
  • Okay, Voldy, I know you're deep into symbolism, but practicality has to win out sometime, y'know. Horcruxes are nearly indestructible, but a few known things can destroy them, namely basilisk venom and fiendfyre. Fully five of your Horcruxes were destroyed by basilisk venom, either directly (stabbed with a basilisk fang) or indirectly (stabbed with a basilisk-venom-imbued Goblin sword).
    Hey, you know what's not only immune to basilisk venom, but actually strengthened by it? Goblin's silver, like what the Sword of Gryffindor is made out of. We don't explicitly know if Goblin's silver is similarly strengthened by fiendfyre, but it stands to reason, considering it's repeatedly described as completely indestructible and strengthened by anything that might otherwise harm it.
    I know you tried and failed to obtain Gryffindor's Sword specifically, but did you seriously give up that easily? You couldn't buy, beg, borrow, or steal any other bit of Goblin's silver to make a basilisk- and fiendfyre-proof Horcrux out of? We're talking about eliminating your one remaining Kryptonite Factor and making you really, truly, absolutely immortal here. Surely that would have been worth the effort?
    • If it can be made, it can be unmade. Surely there are goblins out there talented enough to destroy something made by their blacksmiths.
    • Even if we assume for the sake of argument that that's the case, narrowing down the list of weaknesses from ""basilisk venom, fiendfyre, goblins" to just "goblins" is still a huge improvement. Voldy being Voldy, it wouldn't be out of character for him to commit a little goblin genocide and wipe out those who know the secret of unmaking his Soul Jars.
    • It's also possible that Goblin silver can't be made into a Horcrux. It's said, is it not, that Golbin-forged items are incapable of sustaining damage or being worn down...The level of Dark magic that the making of a Horcrux entails would probably count as too damaging and defiling to very effectively "strengthen" much of anything, in my opinion.

     Narcissa in the Forest 
  • Narcissa knows that Harry is alive in the Forest after Voldemort attempts to kill him. The only reason he isn't is because Harry is the master of the Elder Wand, tied to Voldemort, was Voldy's Horcrux, etc. Now, because Harry is the master of the Elder wand, the Cruciatus doesn't work on him. But Narcissa couldn't have known that. If Harry hadn't been the master of the Elder Wand, Narcissa's lie would have been obvious when Voldy Cruciated Harry, or done something else to humiliate him and show that he was dead. How could she have lied to Voldemort without knowing that Harry was the master of the Elder Wand? Voldemort would have killed her for lying to him and done goodness only knows what to Draco too probably.
    • My only guess is that she must've known something about how the Elder Wand worked, and thus was able to piece the chain of its owners together until she realized that Harry was the one at the end of that chain, since he disarmed Draco at Malfoy Manor, and Draco was the one who disarmed Dumbledore the night he was killed - since the Elder Wand switches between owners on a whim, based solely on the slightest difference in power between one and the next, Narcissa must have figured that if the Elder Wand hadn't worked its Killing Curse on him as he was its master, then the Cruciatus Curse would be ineffective, as well.
    • Narcissa didn't know Voldemort would inflict Cruciatus on Harry's "dead" body. She just lied to him and hoped for the best.
    • Let's not forget that it wasn't Narcissa's intention to protect Harry in any way beyond declaring him dead. She wanted to get into the castle so she could reunite with Draco and then they would leave, and she was willing to help save Harry's life where she could in exchange. If Voldemort did find out Harry was still alive (that is to say, before he actually did), Narcissa could just claim he had been dead when she checked, and that she had nothing to do with him "spontaneously" returning to life. (Which she didn't, technically.) There's no indication she would've done more to try and help him.

     Why seven Potters? 
  • During the flight of the Seven Potters, why did Harry need to maintain his own appearance throughout the battle? If six other people have already taken on his visage, why didn't they take it one step further by giving the real Harry Polyjuice potion to give him the appearance of someone else?
    • Would it have made much of a difference? As soon as the Death Eaters see a different group of people leave than the one that entered, they know that some Polyjuice trickery is going on, and at that point anyone can be anyone so there's no reason to target any particular person (until the real Harry tips them off). They could have been fourteen Mundungus Fletcherses and the end result would have been more or less the same.
    • For that matter, why the stupid, stupid seven Potter plan in the first place? Why couldn't they just Apparate a bunch of times? Up to Scotland, over to Ireland, back to Wales, across the channel to France? Sure, they might have set off the Trace at Harry's place, but that would hardly matter if they quickly apparated to a new place shortly thereafter? Why didn't they just move him in June, well before the deadline? Why not Polyjuice themselves as the Dursleys and then walk to a car and then drive it away? There are so many magical options and they decide "Let us fly slowly in full view of the public and our potential enemies and hope nothing bad happens."

     Ariana 
  • When Aberforth says that Ariana was “attacked” by three Muggle boys, what exactly did he mean by that? He never does clarify in which sense she was attacked, and after reading the story, all I’ve been left thinking is what sort of person would want to attack a six-year-old in any way, shape, or form, especially one that would end up traumatizing her. I’ve heard some people suggesting it may have been rape, but Aberforth makes it clear the boys were simply afraid of what she was doing and wanted her to stop it, so how would raping her help them in that regard?
    • Moreover, where were her parents at that? You'd think causing enough mental trauma to permanently damage a person would take some time and effort, and the victim would hardly keep silent and cooperative, and yet... nothing?
    • MOR Eover, were there no wards of any kind? These people lived in a mixed settlement, and they had an infant child whom they know is prone to uncontrollable magic, and yet some random kids just saw her doing stuff and then just climbed over to her?
    • ...I thought her magic became uncontrollable as a result of traumatization from the attack...Or did Aberforth say she had a difficult time controlling it before that point?
    • I meant a magical child in general.
  • Speaking of unconcious magic, isn't IT supposed to protect wizard children? Harry teleports to the roof just to escape some bullies, and yet in the same but worse situation it's completely absent?
    • If Ariana were younger than Harry when she was attacked, it's possible her magic wasn't really "developed" enough to sufficiently help her. Also, the boys were attacking her because of the magic she was performing, so her performing more magic likely only served to make them angrier and more inclined to continue attacking.

     Surviving the Killing Curse 
  • After reading this book, I fail to understand the specifics behind Harry surviving the Killing Curse. When I first read about it, I'd assumed it was because the Elder Wand was loyal to Harry and powerful enough to destroy the Horcrux inside him without actually killing him. But then ghost-Dumbledore shows up and describes in (some) detail how it was Harry's blood in Voldemort's veins that kept him rooted to the world of the living and how Harry willingly sacrificed himself helped to keep him alive, and...pretty much every other explanation than the Elder Wand's allegiance to him. Most important to me, though, is the blood magic - why did Voldemort using Harry's blood in his resurrection manage to keep him from dying?
    • Voldemort, in some ways, was like a Horcrux to Harry. By having a bit of Lily's blood protection in himself, it meant that he could not kill Harry because there was another piece of Harry alive in him too, so to speak. If all of Harry wasn't killed including his blood in Voldemort, then Harry wouldn't die.

     Dementors and Horcruxes 
  • Horcruxes are formed when you commit murder to split your soul and then seal a portion of that soul inside something else. Since dementors can suck out peoples’ souls, does that mean they could potentially destroy a Horcrux by sucking the soul fragment out of the object in question?
    • Maybe, but it depends on if they can do that for an animate object. Maybe they'd have a better chance with a living Horcrux like Nagini.

     The trace 
  • After Apparating from the wedding, Harry and friends wonder how the Death Eaters were able to find them so quickly. Harry suggests that maybe they somehow have the trace on him again, but Ron rebukes this by explaining that it needs to be applied onto him in person. Does this mean that every individual infant witch and wizard has to be visited and have the trace applied to them, personally, one by one, by the Ministry? Or is it done when they attend Hogwarts or aother school? (In which case, when? Harry never mentions an instance where this occurred in the first book.)
    • It's magically possible to track the births of magical children, as we know thanks to the Hogwarts magical quill. So either yes, the Ministry tracks this and has an official appear in homes to apply Traces, or it's done automatically by some enchantment that can find magical babies but not trained wizards.

    Retroactive Horcrux Immortality 
  • If Harry was an unintentional Horcrux, doesn't that mean he's been nearly immortal since infancy? Only something that could destroy horcruxes could destroy him, just like Nagini.
    • In-universe Plot Armor, one could call it.
    • Also, would it be possible that Voldemort cast additional protective enchantments over Nagini? Various characters stated that Slytherin's locket was under heavy magical protection on the outside, which was why opening it before attempting to destroy it was ideal. Maybe Voldemort did the same thing with all his Horcruxes, or at least with Nagini, after he found out Harry was searching for them - since he didn't know Harry was a Horcruxes and still wanted to kill him, obviously, he would've been exempt from these.
    • A Horcrux can only be destroyed when the object it's contained within is damaged beyond even magic repair - this would extend to different lengths for different vessels, seeing as the human body is much more fragile and easily penetrable than, say, a locket, diadem, or cup. In addition to protective enchantments, Harry being killed (or even dying naturally, as was mentioned further up on the page) would've likely destroyed the Horcrux that was inside him, since you can't use magic to bring someone back from the dead.

     Blood wards 
  • The Dursleys are shown leaving Privet Drive well before the Order arrives to escort Harry elsewhere before the trace expires. But shouldn't the protection over the house have lapsed already? I thought the only reason Harry was safe there was due to the blood relation between him and his mother's sister, so shouldn't the blood wards have been broken once Petunia left the house to go into hiding?
    • They were leaving the house temporary, hiding from the DE treat, IIRC, besides the charm works as far as Harry considers the house his home.

     Another of Horcruxes 
  • I don't know if this is answered, but what would have happened if the Horcruxes were destroyed before Voldemort recovered his body?
    • He would've died permanently.

     Why make Nagini a Horcrux 
  • Yeah, I get that Nagini is a very useful pet, but why make her a Horcrux? Snakes age and eventually die unlike inanimate objects, which defeats the purpose of hocruxes as a means of immortality.
    • There is the theory that Horcruxes being naturally invulnerable, this was, in a very twisted way, a selfless act — a means of granting the only living thing he ever came close to loving immortality. Also, Voldemort could presumably see through Nagini's eyes thanks to the resulting magical connection (good for spying, that), and also communicate with her telepathically (which would allow him to give her orders in battle without any chance of his enemies picking up on it).
    • To be fair, we don't have a whole lot of specifics on how horcruxes work exactly. But there are a few other topics on the Harry Potter headscratchers page where we ask what would happen to Harry and his horcrux if he were to die. There are a few different possibilities:
      • A, When a living thing contains a horcrux, it becomes immune to everything bar goblin steel or basilisk fangs, with some extend lifespan to boot. Granted, this means that Harry was hardly ever in actual danger throughout the whole series, which is kind of anticlimactic.
      • B, If the snake were to die, its corpse would continue to act as a horcrux. You'd be left with a dead snake that refuses to decompose.
      • C, Nagini is some sort of weird wizard-variety snake that has a longer life expectancy than your average boa constrictor. That, plus the snake's ability to physically defend itself from horcrux-hunters, make it an excellent candidate for a horcrux.
      • How about D: Voldemort killed Nagini, converted her into the serpentine equivalent of one of the Inferi, and then made her into a horcrux. Nobody ever said that a Horcrux can't be an animated carcass that simulates life, or that Harry would be able to tell a living snake from a reanimated one if that simulation was accurate enough.
      • Inferi don't appear to be able to talk or communicate, so if Nagini was one, Harry wouldn't be able to talk to her, Parseltongue or not. Inferi also don't see to have or produce any bodily fluids, yet at the time Voldemort converts her to a Horcrux (book 4), he's still milking her for her venom to sustain himself.
    • Personally, I thought that Nagini was one of Voldemort's more creative horcruxes, on accounts of it being a GIANT EVIL SNAKE. It would have worked even better if he had left his pet snake at home instead of sending it into battle. Definitely one of his more effective horcruxes, though, as opposed to, say, his mother's ring left in her old home, or his diary left with his chief goon in said goon's basement. Seriously, though, it's so disappointing how uncreative he was in hiding these horcruxes, especially considering that all he needed to win was for just ONE of the darn things to survive!

     The Proper Moment... 
  • If Voldemort hadn't decided to kill Snape off to gain mastery of the Elder Wand, then when would Snape have been able to tell Harry the truth about him being a Horcrux like Dumbledore told him to? He was still in league with the Death Eaters by the point where Harry needed to know, which would've prevented him from just approaching him and telling him all at once, but how could he really be able to tell him in secret?
    • It's rather telling that the majority of Voldie's horcruxes are destroyed in the space of 24 hours. It's perfectly illustrating the fact that everything is going to HELL. I imagine that Snape was sitting at Hogwarts, waiting forever for Harry and co. to end their overly-long camping trip. I'd imagine him trying to communicate with them at Hogsmeade, or luring them in with his patronus, or even nabbing them in the halls of Hogwarts when they finally infiltrate the school. The major problem here was that the final days of the war hinged so much on luck- hoping and praying that the Golden Dunderheads would stay alive, that by some miracle they could destroy all the horcruxes, that Snape could somehow arrange a rendezvous with them. Unfortunately, luck was not on Snape's side. Harry had terrible timing, and Snape had barely caught wind that Harry was at Hogwarts before Voldemort was swooping in for the kill. Chances are, before Snape was called by Voldie, he was on his was to nab Harry and tell him everything. Bad luck, and lousy timing. (Basically sums up the whole book.)

     Hiding at Hermione's 
It's been a very long time since I read the book properly, so maybye I'm thinking of some fanfic I might have read, but does the idea of the trio using the Granger's now empty house as a hideout, ever come up? If it didn't, why didn't the trio think of this option after they forced to abandon Grimmlaud Place? Or was it a case that they wouldn't have known how to cast the Fiddulus charm over the house?
  • I believe Hermione does consider it at one point, but they deem it too risky as Death Eaters were likely to patrol the area or at least check for them there.
  • Hermione'd planted the idea of moving to Australia into her parents' heads when she erased their memories. Presumably they'd have sold their house to fund their relocation and get themselves a new home Down Under, so some other Muggle family was bound to have moved in there by the time the trio needed such a hideout.
  • And even if the house were still up for sale, the heroes staying there would've drawn too much attention as it was. Even if they wouldn't have done anything as conspicuous as climbing in through a window, three teenagers squatting in a house that's on the market isn't going to stay beneath the radar for long. Someone would've noticed them there and started asking questions, and then they would've had to leave anyway.

     Obliviating Rowle 
After being discovered by Dolohov and Rowle and defeating them, the trio then attempt to cover their tracks by using memory charms. Later Harry gets a vision of Voldemort torturing Rowle for his failure. However, it appears that Rowle actually reported what happened as opposed to Voldemort just reading his mind ("You called me back for this, to tell me that Harry Potter has escaped again?"). The question then is was it just a weak obliviate, since Hermione does say she hadn't done them before (Word of God has said the spell she used on her parents was something different). However, it's also worth noting that in the same scene Rowle is explicitly never mentioned as having his memory wiped. Alternatively then, does this mean that Hermione just forgot? It would be understandable if she did since she was in a panic at being discovered, after all.
  • We know from Bertha Jorkins that you can torture your way past a memory charm if you're strong enough and you don't really care about the target's mind. Given that Hermione's inexperienced with them, that's probably what happened. If Voldemort gets called by a Death Eater who mysteriously doesn't remember why he made the call in the first place, he's smart enough to put two-and-two together and understand that somebody got Obliviated.

     The Weasley's car 
I forget, did the Weasley's car ever make an appearance during the battle for Hogwarts?
  • No, it did not make an appearance during the battle scene. I can't fault anyone for asking, because so many things happen in such a short amount of time (even the bloody Headless Hunt make a re-appearance during it), but no, the Flying Ford Anglia, which J.K. said would come back in a 1999 interview, in the end did not appear.

     Snape vs. McGonagall 
Why did Snape even bother to attack back against McGonagall, if he was being a double agent the whole time? Sure, he probably knew McGonagall was skilled enough to counter, but accidents can happen. The film version where Snape fights purely defensively seems to make more sense here.
  • He still needed to make his "counterattacks" realistic, as he had no way of knowing that his pretense as a "loyal Death Eater" wouldn't need to continue for many months to come even after he'd retreated from Hogwarts. Also, she was trying to, y'know, blow his head off or whatever.

     Umbridge and the Centaurs 
  • Isn't it weird that Umbridge didn't take advantage of the new regime to have her revenge on the centaurs? You'd think she'd have them banished or exterminated after... whatever they'd done to her, and yet they apparently carry on living completely undisturbed. Even if she'd entrusted this mission to Snape, I don't think he'd be able to just pretend he did it, since an entire herd of centaurs cannot be easy to hide.
    • Maybe she was so traumatized by whatever they'd done to her in Order of the Phoenix that she didn't dare try to provoke them again, regardless of her feelings toward them.

     "Always." 
  • I understand that Snape's Patronus was meant to be a big reveal to the reader, but why did Dumbledore seem so surprised by it? Lily's death was the only reason Snape made his Heel–Face Turn and worked so hard to protect Harry all the years since then - yet Dumbledore's awestruck reaction is as though he thought Snape had forgotten about her.
    • He knows that Snape left Voldemort because of Lily. But when Harry came into the picture, Snape consistently saw only James in him and nobody else, so Dumbledore might have thought he only begrudgingly does his part to protect the boy because he is ordered to and wonder what is stronger: the love for Lily or the hate of a man whose likeness he sees every single day. The doe is a proof that the constant reminder of his bullying and humiliation didn't change his core feelings even if he took it out on Harry.
    • It's entirely possible for human beings to fall deeply in love with someone, lose them tragically, and then find somebody else to love if you give them almost twenty years to do so. Dumbledore may not have been certain if Second Love was possible for his double agent, but the fact that Snape's Patronus hasn't changed proves that for him, there was only Lily, ever and ... "always".

     Sacrificial protection 
  • So Harry willingly surrendering himself in the forest invoked the same magical protection his mother had over the people of Hogwarts, since Voldemort only said he would kill them if Harry tried to hide from him. But shouldn't the protection have been voided anyway? One of the requirements for the protection to work is that you willingly disregard all opportunities to walk away unharmed in order to sacrifice yourself for someone else. But Harry didn't actually die - sources vary on where he ended up, but Dumbledore says he has a choice of whether to pass on or not, and he chose to return to life. So how is the protection still in place?
    • He did hit Harry Potter with a spell designed only to kill which only works with specific intent to kill the target when the conditions of the contract are kill one in exchange for others. It could be that the killing curse's very nature was good enough to enter Voldemort into a sort of magical contract and pushing Harry Potter to the figurative border of the afterlife was good enough on his part. It's also possible Harry Potter's heart had temporarily stopped, which could count as "death" from a figurative point of view if you're a life starts at heartbeat believer.

     Aberforth dropping out 
  • Yeah we know Albus Dumbledore, being brilliant himself, put an emphasis on Aberforth finishing his education and was set on taking the head of family role, but why did he keep shutting down Aberforth's offers of dropping out and caring for Ariana? I mean it would have made sense for all parties. Ariana got along better with Aberforth anyway, Aberforth could calm her down, and Albus would have gotten to go on the trip and afterwards he still could have played the family head role by working to provide the finances necessary to cover the all-day attention Ariana needed.

     Snape's Sudden Sacrifice 
  • When Snape was with Voldemort in the shack and realized he was planning to kill him to secure mastery of the Elder Wand, why didn't he just apparate away? At that point, there's no value in trying to keep up the facade if he's just going to kill him anyway- and if he dies then he fails his mission. Snape, who is otherwise extremely cool under pressure and quite motivated to complete his task, really is the one person I would expect to think logically in that situation. And in case anyone's wondering, they're still in Hogsmeade, and you can apparate out of there. (Oddly enough, this is one plot hole the film alleviates- because Voldemort kills him in the school's boathouse, which presumably is still under the anti-apparition charm.)
    • Perhaps V anticipated that and specifically warded the shack against apparition in advance.
    • I think it's technically still an issue in the film, too, since Voldemort Apparates on school grounds a couple different times, including directly after killing Snape. Either way, my guess is that Snape still thought he could salvage the situation, by telling Voldemort that he could disarm him to gain the wand's allegiance just as easily, without having to waste the life of a valuable follower. Or he could tell that Harry was listening in on their conversation through Legilimency and decided to get the information to him in the most efficient way possible, even if it meant forfeiting his own life. If he Apparates away, Voldemort will try to follow him, and Snape will therefore have to do a lot of workarounds in order to find the time to confront Harry with what he needs to know, and will probably still be murdered by Voldemort at some point.

     PotterWatch password 
  • What is the point of needing a password to listen to PotterWatch? Especially if they are order connected password ordinary people wouldn't get, and the broadcasts are irregular. Hardly anyone could listen to the show if they wanted to!

     Bill, Fleur, and thestrals 
  • Since Bill and Fleur were riding a thestral during the Battle of the Seven Potters, were they able to see it? I'm having a hard time imagining that they'd choose to ride a giant invisible horse, knowing that they were probably about to be attacked by Death Eaters (especially since they picked the thestral over brooms, since Fleur lacked confidence on a broom. I doubt an invisible thestral would have been much better for allaying her fears). If they were able to see the thestrals from the beginning, whose death/s had they witnessed? I know Fleur saw Cedric's body soon after his death - does that count?
    • Is it really necessary for Bill and Fleur to explain who they saw die? We don’t need to know their entire life histories. For all we know, it was Uncle Billius that Bill saw die, and Fleur some unknown relative.

     Muggle-borns 
  • Dean, Ted Tonks and others attempt to evade Death Eaters, Snatchers, etc. Wouldn't it have been easier for the ones who were of age to go hide in the Muggle world and not use magic? Or make their dwellings Unplottable like Number 12, or leave the country. Or see if any of their friends might take them in or help them achieve any of the above?
    • Maybe they don't want to put any of their friends in danger, especially if those friends are Muggles who don't know about the Wizarding World. And I don't know the exact details, but I'm pretty sure you need a passport or at least your birth certificate and other records in order to leave the country and travel internationally, and those things are tough to get your hands on when you're on the run and the government body that handles most of your life records has been taken over by Death Eaters.

     Goblins Unhealthy Business Practices 
  • If Goblins believe that the true owner of something is the maker and not the purchaser, and that selling something is actually a loan, why do they bother selling things to other species in the first place? They know that wizards don't see things the same way and they know that they're never going to get their stuff back, so why go through the headache? Just don't sell things to them. Or specify before the purchase that it's actually a loan. This whole conflict just seems like a lot of error of communication that could easily be solved.
    • My interpretation was that the goblins do commerce human-style because they need to be able to support themselves, and because no human is going to want to “buy” something under the stipulation that it’s actually a loan or a rental.

     The Grey Lady 
  • Since there was a Horcrux inside Hogwarts all along, how come Helena never told Dumbledore about what Tom Riddle had done? I get she wouldn't want to reveal her true identity to anyone (Even the headmaster), but surely, she could mention some kind of a hint in a way that wouldn't reveal her true identity. "Hey, Albus? Remember the time Tom Riddle came asking for a job? Well, he hid a dark item in the school..."
  • That's in the films only. In the book, Helena had no clue that Riddle used the diadem as a Horcrux, or that he had returned it to Hogwarts; Harry put the pieces together after simply learning that Helena had stolen the diadem and Riddle charmed the location of it out of her, and remembering that he had used it as a marker in the Room of Hidden Things in the previous book.

     I didn't kill the fake Dumbeldore ghost 
  • What's the craic with people telling the fake Dumbeldore ghost in number 12 Grimmauld Place that they didn't kill him?
How did Harry know to say that to it?Did I miss a bit where somebody told him?
  • The trio figured out that the fake ghost vanishes when someone says the word "kill" the first time they entered Number 12 in the book because Harry said that none of them killed Dumbledore, out of desperation. Lupin probably knew about the method to stop Dusty because Moody told him.

     Yes Ontological Inertia 
  • The previous book said that a spell stops taking effect when the caster dies but there's several instances of the permanent sticking charm still being in effect in Number 12 Grimmauld Place when the Black family are all dead.
    • It depends on the spell. The Full Body-Bind Curse ceases when the caster dies, but other spells such as the Permanent Sticking Charm and Dumbledore's Bond of Blood enchantment stay in effect. It's never said that all spell effects cease after death.


Back to the main Headscratchers page
Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report