Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

How many "Hard and Fast" errors are there? (adapted) Condensed Thread

Go down

How many "Hard and Fast" errors are there? (adapted) Condensed Thread Empty How many "Hard and Fast" errors are there? (adapted) Condensed Thread

Post  Elanor Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:44 am

How many "Hard and Fast" errors are there? (adapted) Condensed Thread

This topic serves as an archive of a thread from the Harry Potter Lexicon Forum as hosted on World Crossing which ceased operation on April 15, 2011. Elanor

Kip Carter - Jan 7, 2004 12:52 am
co-Host with Steve on the Lexicon Forum, but he has the final say as the Owner!
Edited Jan 12, 2006 11:42 pm

I have not edited this thread yet; however I felt that it should be posted being that it is an integral part of our Forum. I will be editing it in the future. - Kip

How many "Hard and Fast" errors are there?
Prefect Marcus - Jan 29, 2003 9:25 am
Edited by Kip Carter Nov 19, 2003 11:07 am
I would like to develop a list of true errors. Errors that simply cannot be explained away without going into wild convolutions.

In order to fit into this category, an error has to meet certain criteria:

It must come from the Books. Information from interviews, chats, and the movies do not and cannot count. It must come from the narrator. If the problem arises because of what a character says or sees, it doesn't count. The character could be lying, exaggerating, forgetting momentarily, interpreting incorrectly, not noticing, just plain wrong, or may change his mind. It cannot be a typo. These are, perhaps, a little harder to weed out. The rule here is if the mistake only occurs once, it is likely a typo. It cannot rely upon knowledge or assumptions of the wizarding world. We simply do not know all the ends and out of Rowling's universe. It cannot deal with problems of coordinating things with a supposed time line. For instance checking to see if there really was a full moon on a certain night in a year that we assume an event takes place. Rowling makes little effort to do that, so there is little point in pursuing it.

The rules eliminate many cherished questions such as why Lupin didn't change until the moon came out from behind a cloud, and the myriad questions concerning the Marauder's map.

With those rules in mind, I can only think of two, perhaps three mistakes: The three week August in PoA. The wand order in GoF, subsequently corrected in later editions. The Yule Ball Tables in GoF. It has always bugged me that in one paragraph, Dumbledore motions all to stand up and the tables are then piled up against the wall. The next paragraph Harry notices that the table lights are dimmed (I thought they were already piled against the wall?) and his table mates are now standing. (I thought everybody was already standing.)

Any others?
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 1440
Join date : 2011-02-19
Age : 49
Location : France

Back to top Go down

How many "Hard and Fast" errors are there? (adapted) Condensed Thread Empty How many "Hard and Fast" errors are there? (adapted) Condensed Thread - Part 1

Post  Elanor Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:46 am

Penny L. - Feb 1, 2003 9:53 am (#1 of 225)
What about the descendant/ancestor question in CoS? My book says "last remaining ancestor" and i figured it was a mistake, but then i heard it got changed to descendant, then i heard it was changed back... so im a little confused as to what its supposed to be.

Sly Girl - Feb 1, 2003 1:54 pm (#2 of 225)
I'm not exactly sure if this fits, but the part in GoF where Harry is awaiting the people coming out of the wand, the narrative implies that Harry knows who it is going to be "because he had been thinking of him all day" has always seemed off to me. I don't think it has to do with the wand order error, it seems to stand alone from that. Harry hadn't thought of his father at all- as far as us, the readers know, so why have that line?

Madam Poppy - Feb 1, 2003 3:55 pm (#3 of 225)
I still feel that Fudge had no way of knowing that a Dementor had tried to "administer the Kiss on an innocent boy". Everyone involved was either in the forest or unconscious.

Prefect Marcus - Feb 1, 2003 4:09 pm (#4 of 225)
CPennyLane: As far as I know, that was a typo that was only in one spot and has since been corrected. Now if he had been referred to several times as the last "ancestor", THAT would be an error. ALSO, it is Dumbledore speaking. See Rule #2.

Slytherin Girl: Ah, but he had! Reread the chapter. He was going to face death like a man, like his father...remember?

Madam Poppy -- But that is just the problem. The story is told strictly from Harry's point of view, and from Harry's POV, we don't know how Fudge knew. But we obviously do not know everything that went on that night, do we? And what we do know besides Harry's POV is told by someone else. (See rule #2 above)

Lexicon Steve - Feb 2, 2003 8:01 am (#5 of 225)
In GF, September 1 and September 2 are both Mondays.

But I am starting to believe the September 2 at Hogwarts is ALWAYS a Monday, since it's always the first day of the first week of classes. It makes no difference what day Muggle September 1 is (when they all leave Kings Cross and, in a sense, enter the Magical World). Just maybe, at Hogwarts, September 2 is always a Monday.


Lexicon Steve - Feb 2, 2003 8:03 am (#6 of 225)
By the way, this is an EXCELLENT thread. I think I'll post some of its contents in the Lexicon eventually, once it's had a chance to run for a while.


W J - Feb 2, 2003 3:24 pm (#7 of 225)
In one or two places in the books (I can't remember where!), it says "coat of arms" when it clearly should have been "suit of armor".

That is a minor mistake, I know, but still....

rettoP yrraH - Feb 2, 2003 6:05 pm (#8 of 225)
Edited by Feb 2, 2003 6:06 pm
What about Harry alarm Clock? i must have posted this 5 or six times. I think that JK made a mistake in PoA with the 'red luminus numbers of his clock' sounds like a Muggle digital clock to me no?

Prefect Marcus - Feb 3, 2003 9:02 am (#9 of 225)
Edited by Feb 3, 2003 9:16 am
rettoP yrraH: True, it does sound like a digital clock, but I once had a mechanical clock that had large red glow-in-the-dark numbers on it. We already know that most windup mechanical things seem to work just fine around magic. What else do we know about Harry's clock? Were the numbers glowing in the daytime? That would definitely point to being a digital clock.

Steve: I'll have to check my GoF, but I think a double Monday would qualify. If the three week August qualifies, so must a double Monday.


rettoP yrraH - Feb 3, 2003 9:08 am (#10 of 225)
Edited by Feb 3, 2003 9:23 am
Marcus, the wind up clocks only glow an hour or so I have one too. She specificly said Lumonus Numbers i think that means numbers that light up not glowing.

PoA I think when Peeves wakes him up.

Prefect Marcus - Feb 3, 2003 9:17 am (#11 of 225)
What's the reference on the clock?

timrew - Feb 3, 2003 10:49 am (#12 of 225)
WJ, JKR actually gets the phrases "coats of arms" and "suits of armour mixed up. It's at the start of Chapter Eight of PS, (The Potions Master) where she writes, "The people in the portraits kept going to visit each other and Harry was sure the coats of armour could walk".

Prefect Marcus - Feb 3, 2003 2:41 pm (#13 of 225)
rettoP yrraH: Thinking about it, this involves us not fully understanding the Wizarding world, thus it cannot be included per rule #4. Wizards do create their own clocks. They might even make digital ones. Why couldn't they? The clock could be a muggle one with the numbers "improved" to glow all day and all night. Even if the clock was a pure muggle clock, she doesn't specify how brightly the numerals were glowing.

You are certainly could be right about it being a mistake on Rowling's part, but it is too easily explained away, unfortunately.

W.J. & Scrambledeggs: Sounds like a typo. (1) How often is the term "Coats of Armor" used? (2) What does the American version say? I'll check tonight. (3) Are we sure that the term "Coats of Armor" is not another, less-used term for "Suits of Armor?"

Nine - Feb 3, 2003 3:17 pm (#14 of 225)
Edited by Feb 3, 2003 3:19 pm
In SS I think it's "suits of armor".

And that clock, if wizard-made and glowing, wouldn't be digital per se, but could be something similar, perhaps based on the concept of the hourglass and using the Lumos spell.

W J - Feb 3, 2003 7:56 pm (#15 of 225)
Thanks, Scambledeggs. I couldn't remember where the "coat of armor" was in the books. Smile

Landman - Feb 3, 2003 10:34 pm (#16 of 225)
Edited by Feb 3, 2003 10:36 pm
Prefect Marcus:

I must be honest -- these are not all mine. I've collected these off the web -- most have been discussed, but I'm not sure how they might fit in with your rules.

In book 1, the sorting hat sits on a four-legged stool while in the fourth; it sits on a three-legged stool.

In book 1, when Hagrid comes to pick up Harry from the cabin on the rock, Harry and Hagrid take the boat, so how do the Dursley's get back?

In Book Three, Hermione says that if she drops muggle studies she'll have the same amount of subjects as they do. But Hermione will have Arithmancy, Ancient Ruins, and Care of Magical Creatures. That's three. Harry and Ron only have Care of Magical Creatures and Divination.

In book 3, in the American version, Harry gets on the knight bus and has to pay the fair in sickles but it says he shoved the “gold” into the mans hand.

In book 1 when Hagrid is taking Harry down Diagon Ally, they hear a lady say, "17 sickles for a dragon liver, that’s crazy!", but later Hagrid told Harry that 17 sickles make a gallion, so she should have said a “gallion for a dragon liver”, not 17 sickles.

In Book Four Snape takes 50 points away from Harry but that doesn't matter because there is no house cup in book 4 because of the triwizard tournament.

When Harry first stays at the Weasley's house, in the second book, the Weasley's clock is described. It says "the clock only had ONE hand, and various phrases where the numbers ought to have been, such as 'Time to feed the chickens', 'Time to make supper', and 'You're late.' But in the fourth book, when Harry re-visits the Weasley's, the clock is described as having NINE hands." Did they get a new clock? Or did they change it?

When the Dursleys get Mrs. Weasley's letter, she writes, “I know we have never been introduced," but they have - at the ending of the first book when Mrs. Weasley says, "You must be Harry's relatives!" Maybe she meant they had never been INTRODUCED introduced.

In book 4, It said that carpets are defined as muggle objects and therefore they are not allowed to be charmed. But broomsticks are also muggle objects and they are allowed.

In book Four, Krum says that Hermione has a beetle in her hair. It said "She brushed it out impatiently." But when they are on the Hogwarts Express, she says that Krum picked it out.

In book 3, it says Lupin was looking at the marauder's map around at the end when Harry and his friends visit Hagrid just before the hippogriff was going to be killed. So why doesn't the Harry and Hermione that came back with the time turner show up on the map too? Not even Snape saw two Harry’s when he saw the map later!

In book 3 it says that Cedric Diggory is a 5th yr. Then in Book 4 his dad, Amos, says that he can't wait for his son to take the Apparition test at the end of the year. The test is taken in 7th yr. Did he skip a year or something?????

In book one Hagrid is twice as tall as a normal man, in book four he is only head and shoulders above the rest...did he shrink?

Lexicon Steve - Feb 4, 2003 7:59 am (#17 of 225)
number of legs on the stool: So they used a different stool that year! No problem there!

Dursleys getting off the rock: Someone obviously came and got them; just because we didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. In fact, since we see them in Privet Drive again later, we know that it DID happen. No problem there either.

shoving "gold" into a person's hand: That phrase uses the term "gold" to refer generically to money. It's not literal. Again, no problem.

no house cup in book four: Yes there is. There is no QUIDDITCH cup, but there certainly is a House Cup.

Weasely clocks: They are in two different rooms (kitchen/living room), so they are two different clocks. No problem.

carpets vs. brooms: So that means that brooms are NOT classified as Muggle objects. This is a redtape and regulation thing. The point is in what is classified as what, not what it intrinsically is. No problem.

Map question: The map isn't all-knowing. It shows what it was created to show, and it wasn't created to show time-displaced persons. No problem.

Hagrid's height: Whoever came up with these doesn't understand styles of writing. Each of these is a genereral description of Hagrid as seen by Harry. Neither is a precise measurement of the man. It says his feet are like baby dolphins too, you know. No problem.

I could also debunk every single other one of these "problems." These are just silly. They involve someone either deliberately not understanding what was said or being ridiculously literal (do they also believe that Harry and his friends "jumped a foot off the floor"?). In some cases these statements show that the person doesn't understand the books very well!

Thanks for posting this--it's kind of fun to pick them apart!--but whichever website you got them from should be ashamed of itself.


dudley - Feb 4, 2003 8:11 am (#18 of 225)
On a slightly related point. There is a website called "movie mistakes" that catlogues mistakes in films. This is the link to the first Harry Potter film.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Prefect Marcus - Feb 4, 2003 8:43 am (#19 of 225)
Landman: Thanks for the effort, but these merely seem to be a list of questions that are not answered directly in the book. That does not make them errors. Do you see any that cannot be easily explained?

Steve: I think we will have to include the GoF double Monday. We are told that the last evening before riding the train is a Sunday, and we are told that the first day of classes is a Monday. What happened to the all-day trip to Hogwarts? All this is told us by the narrator.

Now Ron could have been examining Monday's schedule by mistake, but in that case all three of the trio would have to have made the same mistake, which isn't very likely.

People, what are your thoughts on the Yule Ball tables? Am I seeing something that isn't there?


Prefect Marcus - Feb 4, 2003 8:47 am (#20 of 225)
Dudley, Thanks for the interesting link, but it doesn't really fit with this thread. (See Rule #1 above.)


dudley - Feb 4, 2003 9:49 am (#21 of 225)
Here are a few I stole off a website. I have reasoned with somen of them.

In Year 1 Marcus Flint is introduced as a Sixth Year student and Slytherin Captain. (Chapter Eleven, 1st U.S. edition p. 185) In Year 3 is still mentioned as Slytherin Captain, while he would have finished school by now. (Chapter Thirteen, 1st U.S. edition p. 263, 305 onwards)

I think JKR said that Flint stayed back a year.

In Year 4, Barty Crouch is referred to as Moody (1st U.K. edition, p. 594) In Year 4, Cornelius Fudge is referred to as Crouch (1st U.K. edition, Crouch leaves on p. 485, reference on p. 485)

These are just mistakes. They probably need to be verified at some point.

dudley - Feb 4, 2003 9:52 am (#22 of 225)
Oh. The classic. In the invitation to Hogwarts letter, it says you may also bring a cat, toad or owl. Ron brings a Rat.

NoVeil4Me - Feb 4, 2003 10:03 am (#23 of 225)
On the money mistake, I was just reading elsewhere that it was corrected in later editions. The Marcus Flint one, JKR said in an interview he had to repeat a year.

dudley - Feb 4, 2003 10:14 am (#24 of 225)
In the second harry potter book the Dursley's send Harry a Christmas present. How?

Marè - Feb 4, 2003 10:53 am (#25 of 225)
It was assumed somewhere (don't know were) that Hogwarts somehow provides for a transportation for the muggle families. Which would explain why the dursleys even give harry a present, it would look stupid if some-one came to collect the presents and they don't give anything.

Prefect Marcus - Feb 4, 2003 11:03 am (#26 of 225)
Dudley: Getting better. I am afraid the mis-naming has to pass as a typo. (Rule #3) They are mentioned once, never again, never referred to, and are corrected in subsequent editions.

Marcus Flint was explained by JKR. It is also covered in Rule #4 -- knowledge of the wizarding world. (It was likely a mistake, but she covered it. Smile )

About the rat as a pet, I suspect that that is a rule that is there "just in case." It is enforced when a child attempts to bring an unreasonable pet, but not with a rat, mouse, or goldfish. I can't see McGonagall -- the old softie -- refusing to allow a child's pet if she could avoid doing so. Neither do I see Dumbledore insisting upon it. Snape, on the other hand,... .

Now if the non-standard pet ever became a problem, the rule would be put into force.

As to how the Dursley's sent a Christmas present, that goes under Rule #4. We simply do not know all the ways that muggle parents/guardians communicate with their children at Hogwarts. Obviously they have to. Perhaps there is a real post office box somewhere that Hogwarts uses. Even if that was not the case, I can easily imagine Hogwarts sending an owl to all the muggle families telling them that the owl would remain while they prepared their son/daughter's present. What would the Dursleys do? The quickest and easiest way to get rid of the blasted thing is to send a present. Any other action might cause consequences that would be very unpleasant.

These are good. Keep trying.


Landman - Feb 4, 2003 12:20 pm (#27 of 225)
Edited by Feb 4, 2003 12:22 pm
These are a lot of fun and I appreciate the post, but the truth is that virtually any "error" can be explained (because we're dealing in a magical world.) Or if you want to take the other side of things, you could easily argue on behalf of some of the points that have been dismissed in posts above.

To take your examples:

The three week August in PoA -- During this particular year, in August only, there are only three weeks (it happens every 4 years in fact.)

The wand order in GoF, subsequently corrected in later editions -- the wand order was correct - maybe James somehow partially deflected the curse and only died after Lily (he was still hanging on by a thread until after Lily's death.)

The Yule Ball Tables in GoF. It has always bugged me that in one paragraph, Dumbledore motions all to stand up and the tables are then piled up against the wall. The next paragraph Harry notices that the table lights are dimmed (I thought they were already piled against the wall?) and his table mates are now standing. (I thought everybody was already standing.) -- Since they didn't say how the tables were piled up, it's possible that the lights were still visible and only dimmed after they were neatly "piled" against the wall -- and maybe Harry just didn't notice that his table mates were already standing, because he was excited and distracted.

These might sound like stretches, and I don't mean to be argumentative, but JKR's answer to Marcus Flint is a perfect example of justifying anything. Clearly, that was a mistake, but she covered it by saying he was held back (which is perfectly reasonable, except you wouldn't tend to let someone with failing grades play sports.)

Again, I appreciate you doing this and it is a great post, but "errors" are relative and also, like beauty, is "in the eye of the beholder"

But keep posting. . .


Prefect Marcus - Feb 4, 2003 1:08 pm (#28 of 225)
Landman, I am fully aware that "errors are in the eyes of the beholder." That is why I attempted to set some groundrules at the very beginning -- to try to make them a little more objective.

The three-week August fits the rules because it states several different places that Aunt Marge was there for a week. It also makes a big point that she arrives on his birthday (July 31). It also states in several places that Harry was at Diagon Alley for two weeks. And he leaves for Hogwarts on the first of September. We also know that Harry keeps very careful track of the days during Summer. I would think he would notice suddenly losing ten days out of the month leading up to returning to Hogwarts.

The wand order fits the rules because it is referred to several different times. She did not write. "Harry's father came out, then his father. He was very moved to see his mother" That would be a typo because obviously the second usage of "father" is in error. It is a fine point, but one that has to be followed. Besides, if the original order was correct, then all subsequent books are in error. Both orders cannot be the same.

You might be right about the tables. That is why I am asking for people's opinions on it.


schoff - Feb 4, 2003 3:05 pm (#29 of 225)
How about this one: in GoF, the third task was held on the last day of finals, yet when HRH go to visit Hagrid ("The Beginning") it's during a cancelled DADA class ("As there was no longer a Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, they had those lessons free.") Do they still go to class after finals?

Prefect Marcus - Feb 4, 2003 4:50 pm (#30 of 225)
schoff: No they don't. In all the books, they just kind of lay around for several days waiting for their grades to come out. Hmmm, you might have a winner. Can anyone poke holes in it?


Cliff Hamaker - Feb 4, 2003 7:15 pm (#31 of 225)
Prefect Marcus, this is how I think the Yule Ball thing goes. If you go back and read the section again it isn't anything at all really. He suddenly noticed that the table lanterns on all the other tables had been dimmed(I'm assuming there were still tables for the sutdents to sit at when they tired of dancing and I think that they do sit at tables when not dancing though it could be that they just sat in chairs). And the people standing up part.... The champions and their dates were all sitting with the teachers at the front of the Great Hall. Therefore they would be his "tablemates". And I know for a fact that this table isn't moved because Ron and Harry sit down at it and talk to Percy after that dance had begun. So, the part your thinking of just needs to be reread. Though I could be wrong on a point or two, I think my argument holds water.

Hermione Potter - Feb 5, 2003 8:35 am (#32 of 225)
Lexicon Steve

I agree on most of your debunking, save one. The Marauders map not showing Harry and Hermione twicw IS a serious mistake. The "it wasn't created to show time-displaced persons" statement makes no sense to me.

There is no way (I think) to distinguish between "normal" and "time-displaced persons". After the adventure is over Harry and Hermione are still "time-displaced" by three hours, (Hermione by much more) as we never hear about anyone going forward in time to cancel the time travel backwards. Does that mean they will never appear on the map again? Probably not. JKR have produced an item that is far more powerful than she realized when she introduced it, and has made an error, fair and square. :-)

Does it really matter? I believe the books as I read them, that it was matters. Afterwards I can pick them apart, but so what?

Hermione Potter - Feb 5, 2003 8:40 am (#33 of 225)
As to the spell order, I might mention that when I read it did not occur to me as an error at all. The two of them died at almost the same time, hence they appear at the same time, and James, being a protective gentleman (Not much use in that as his wife is dead already...) appear first to check if the coast is clear. (It does nor really hold water, I know.)

NoVeil4Me - Feb 5, 2003 9:30 am (#34 of 225)
The "it wasn't created to show time-displaced persons" statement makes no sense to me.

There is no way (I think) to distinguish between "normal" and "time-displaced persons".

Keep in mind that the map was designed and made by a group of teen aged wizards. I seriously doubt they has any access or knowledge of a time turner. With that firmly in mind, the map is designed (so we assume) to show everyone in the area. I would take a wild guess that the duplicate Harry and Hermione did not show up because they were already on the map. The map, for all that it is cool, is limited by the parameters set by the makers. Since we can assume that they had no knowledge of time travel, you can speculate that there is a built in feature to prevent duplicate people from showing up. I think perhaps during testing phase, they saw a duplicate and decided to make sure it could not happen. This is speculation on my part.

A case in point....Crouch Jr posing as Moody by taking Polyjuice potion. We saw him as Barty Crouch on the map at one time...perhaps he needed to take his potion then? The map "knew" it was Barty Crouch but it did not distinguish between Jr and Sr. Likewise, if the actual Moody had been NOT in the trunk the entire time, would the map have still only shown one Moody? I think so.

Hermione Potter - Feb 5, 2003 9:53 am (#35 of 225)
If time travel is not allowed, duplicates can never occur, so why prevent it? If during testing, a duplicate did occur, that reveals some sort of bug that should be sorted out, not just suppressed. And how does the map know which of a duplicate to suppress?

We never saw Moody on the map, just Barty Crouch. He "confiscated " the map by borrowing it, just to prevent the map from exposing him, as the map always knew who he really were.

It will always be possible to explain away any error by introducing assumptions of how things work in the wizarding world. But it will be increasingly more difficult to make such ad hoc assumptions both consistent and reasonable. In the end it is easier to just mark some things as errors.

I am convinced that JKR never considered the possibility that Harry and Hermione ought to turn up twice on the map until it was to late. That makes it an error on my book, whatever assumptions one might introduce later to explain their absence.

Wendy Snelgrove - Feb 5, 2003 10:40 am (#36 of 225)
This was posted in the "favourite line" forum:

Ron: "It's not funny. If you must know, when I was three, Fred turned my-my teddy bear into a great big filthy spider because i broke his toy broomstick...you wouldn't like them either if you were holding your teddy bear and suddenly it had too many legs and..."

Fred is five or so at that point. If a five-year old can do transfiguration like this, why do the students have such trouble with simple transfiguration in first year? Same idea - the little kids at the Quidditch Cup who were using "baby" brooms. If they can ride a baby broom at age 5, why do they have so much trouble with the simple command "up" at age 11?

NoVeil4Me - Feb 5, 2003 10:56 am (#37 of 225)
The Teddy Bear turning into a spider is an example of fear/anger magic though. It is a subconscience thing and I bet the child could not duplicate it if they tried. Much in the way that people in extreme circumstances can lift a car off a trapped person..they can't do it under regular conditions. Perhaps that example of the teddy bear was used to also show us that the twins, Fred specifically, were incredibly powerful at a young age too.

The baby brooms hovered about 8-10" off the ground and were charmed to do so, the child probably only had to mount to activate the charm. I am basing this on the girls looked to be about 3 years old and when the broom flew, their toes barely were off the grass. The actual flying of a broom requires more concentration and control than just mounting. Regular flying brooms woudl only respond to actual commands, I think.

Prefect Marcus - Feb 5, 2003 11:11 am (#38 of 225)

Yes, there are many questions concerning the map. Why Harry2 and Hermione2 didn't show up is only one of them. However, Rule #4 has to apply here. We simply do not know how the map works. Harry doesn't even know how it works. He can turn it on and turn it off. That is about it. (Sounds like many people with a computer, doesn't it.)

Many questions about the Map also violate Rule #2: People either might not be noticing things, or they might not be mentioning them.


Rule #4 has to apply here, as well. We don't know enough about the wizarding world. There also might be different levels of toy brooms -- simple plastic ones that don't work at all, right up to ones that fly, but never far above the ground and never fast. Besides, if a muggle kid can drive a toy car, will he have instant success with a real one? It's possible but not likely.


Landman - Feb 5, 2003 12:47 pm (#39 of 225)
Edited by Feb 5, 2003 12:48 pm
I was wondering if rule #4 should be modified slightly. If the narrator explains how a bit of magic works and purports that this is complete knowledge then we can "rely upon knowledge or assumptions of the wizarding world."


We have been told how Floo powder works -- you grab a handful of powder, climb into a fireplace that is hooked up to the Floo Network, and clearly say the name of the registered place you want to go. If you don't say the name clearly you'll end up someplace wrong.

Now, is this a complete treatise on Floo powder? No, there are probably other things Floo Powder can do, and other pitfalls if you don't use it correctly -- we can't know all that. BUT, we do know what we've been told is factual. So, we can rely on this as knowledge of the wizarding world (as far as it goes.)

The result then is if a character uses Floo Powder in a fireplace that we know is not hooked up to the Floo Network, but it still works, this is a bonafide error. Could you still explain it away as some assumption we don't yet know about? Sure, but once the writer establishes the rules of their universe, they have to play fair and stick to it. This is actually a cardinal rule of writing.


Prefect Marcus - Feb 5, 2003 1:54 pm (#40 of 225)

It is conceivable that we can make an exception, but it is hard to think of one.

For instance, in PoA Prof. Lupin is very clear about the "Ridikulas" spell. First you turn the Boggart into something funny, and then the laughter will eventually defeat it. Yet in maze in GoF, all Harry had to do was cast "Ridikulas" once at the Boggart and it immediately exploded.

Now, is that a contradiction? On the surface, yes, but I can think of several explanations off the top of my head how that could happen:

It was a weakened Boggart to begin with. Pseudo-Moody was zapping it in secret. It had already been weakened by previous encounters with other champions. Harry had already severely weakend it with his Patronis. and so on.

All these are perfectly logical and require no mental gymnastics to make work.

The same with the famous "Speed Polyjuice." Moste Potente Potions states it takes at least thirty days to brew Polyjuice, yet Wormtail and Bart Junior whipped it up in just a few days. How do we know that a faster formula hasn't been developed? Maybe Wormtail and Voldemort brought some from Albania. Maybe it is available in Knockturn Alley.

No, it will be the rare contradiction that proves the exception, I'm afraid, but it is conceivable.


Cliff Hamaker - Feb 5, 2003 7:19 pm (#41 of 225)
Edited by Feb 5, 2003 7:25 pm
Not having read the book in a week or two, I believe that the reason it took so long for Hermione to fix up the potion was for the one ingerdient, which slips my mind at the moment, that had to be picked under a full moon. However, yes, it still did take a long time to make.

The other thing though is that didn't Voldemort have his plan in mind shortly after he had found out Barty was alive? Therefore, even if the plan was forming in his head from Albania to the U.K. he would have had sufficient time to brew at least a partial batch of Polyjuice Potion on the way if not most of it.

Hermione Potter - Feb 6, 2003 1:34 am (#42 of 225)
Just a remark on the ad hoc "Flint had to take a year twice" assumption introduced by JKR herself to explain that Flint is still captain on the Slytherin Q. team in book 3.

She does not seem to believe it herself, as in my copy of PS (which is a late reprint), Flint is a fifth-year.

dudley - Feb 6, 2003 8:00 am (#43 of 225)
I always thought that in GoF Harry is a much more powerful wizard than the year before, and the logical progression of the Ridikulas spell is from casting a weak spell, transforming it, then laughing, to a powerful spell, projecting that laughter through the spell to defeat the Boggart instantly.

Prefect Marcus - Feb 6, 2003 9:28 am (#44 of 225)
Herminone: If that be the case, then I think we can classify it as a genuine error. It was not changed until after book #3 was published, which strongly suggests it was no typo. It also suggests that she didn't consider Flint being held back when she wrote it.

Good eye!

Let's modify rule #3 on what constitutes a typo. It hinges on no more than a single word used once and only once, and it is quickly caught between editions (especially between British and American ones)


Dr Filibuster - Feb 6, 2003 2:23 pm (#45 of 225)
Edited by Feb 6, 2003 2:35 pm
So the mistake in the very first chapter of The Philosopher's Stone is not a typo.

Our story starts on Tuesday 1st November, later that night Vernon watches tv and the weatherman says Bonfire Night is next week (it's not, it's on Saturday...the same week).

Ok I know it fails on rule 2. It wasn't the narrator's voice it was the "weatherman's mistake", yeah, right JK.

I am Dr Filibuster because my first post was on Bonfire Night when I thought I was terribly clever noticing this one. Of course Steve already has this on the lexicon.

Dr Filibuster - Feb 6, 2003 2:32 pm (#46 of 225)
Edited by Feb 6, 2003 2:38 pm
I'd just like to say that I realise my previous post is the most geekiest thing I have written. I actualy think that it is such a small error nobody has ever bothered to change it in the later editions.

It didn't stop me from getting excited when I discovered it though!

By the way, Hagrid has treacle fudge. I eat treacle toffee, I eat fudge. I have seen many flavours of both but I have never seen, heard of or eaten treacle fudge. And no, I haven't eaten stoat sandwiches either.

NoVeil4Me - Feb 6, 2003 2:58 pm (#47 of 225)
Edited by Feb 6, 2003 3:01 pm
Our story starts on Tuesday 1st November, later that night Vernon watches tv and the weatherman says Bonfire Night is next week (it's not, it's on Saturday...the same week).

I was actually just reading something about this. It is not a mistake but a deliberate poke at the media by JKR, who apparently is not fond of them. Bonfire Night is big in England, according to what I read, and the newsman getting it wrong immediately tells the reader that he is incompetant.

It looks like an error but was done specifically to ridcule the media.

Penny L. - Feb 6, 2003 8:08 pm (#48 of 225)
I'm not disagreeing with you Denise, but i was just wondering where you heard that. I seriously thought that i read everything Harry Potter related, and i never heard that. Did i miss an interview???? NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! I'm going to have to rethink my prioritys here if I'm missing JKR interviews..... :-)

Lexicon Steve - Feb 7, 2003 12:55 pm (#49 of 225)
That's from The Annotated Guide to Harry Potter, a book still being written by John Granger and some other Potter expert whose name escapes me at the moment. So how did you get your hands on it, Denise? Smile


NoVeil4Me - Feb 7, 2003 3:24 pm (#50 of 225)
Edited by Feb 7, 2003 3:27 pm
Steve, after I realized where I quoted from, it was too late to delete :::blushing::: As for where I got it, it arrived in my email in an plain brown wrapper and addressed in block letters......I just emailed you about it Smile

anbigin - Feb 7, 2003 3:52 pm (#51 of 225)
Conspiracy, I smell a conspiracy ... hehe jk.

Rosariana - Feb 12, 2003 7:01 pm (#52 of 225)
Edited by Feb 12, 2003 7:02 pm
When Voldemort tried to kill Harry and became "less than spirt," he had no physical form and therefore could not hold a wand. But somehow he has his wand again at the end of Book 4. Where did the wand go for thirteen years?

This is just a tiny mistake but it bugs me: In GoF, The Unforgiveable Curses chapter, Harry and Ron are making false predictions for Divination. It says Ron dipped his PEN in some ink. A few pages later it says he threw down his QUILL. It's probly a typo, but it should have been corrected.

Hermione Potter - Feb 13, 2003 8:38 am (#53 of 225)
What bugged me is that when they had finished predicting a very bad month ending in their own deaths, they both got top marks and was assigned the task of predicting their next month. Either they does not deserve top marks or there are no point in predicting the next month. :-)

Sly Girl - Feb 13, 2003 8:44 am (#54 of 225)
Edited by Feb 13, 2003 8:45 am
Well, we are talking about Trelawny here... but I don't think thats an error, per se.. more... humorous. Doesn't Ron say something to the effect of why should we if we're going to die? Or maybe I imagined he said it. >;o)

NoVeil4Me - Feb 13, 2003 8:56 am (#55 of 225)
Beware Ron when he jokes around...whatever he jokes about usually comes to pass. I need to go back and read what he predicted and see if any of it actually came true.

Asktqa - Feb 13, 2003 12:08 pm (#56 of 225)
He said he'd be stabbed in the back by someone he thought was a friend, which could almost be the situation with him and Harry, but he predicted it for the wrong day. Smile

Nine - Feb 13, 2003 4:47 pm (#57 of 225)
Edited by Feb 13, 2003 4:49 pm
Ron didn't say "why should we if we're going to die", but the reader was supposed to think it.

And, speaking of Ron and joking, he also said that "yeah, you'll be betting I'll win my fight". An event which could have been this doesn't show up in the book, does it?

Prefect Marcus - Feb 14, 2003 8:45 am (#58 of 225)
Rosariana: Thanks for the post.

The first question about Voldemort's wand is something that we are not told (Rule #4). Hopefully JKR will tell us some time in the future,

As to the "quill" versus "pen" question, the words are synonyms. Good writers tend to use them instead of repeating the same word over and over again. So I am afraid it can't count as a mistake.

The below is a passage from "Pride and Prejudice," published in 1813 by Jane Austen.:

"I am afraid you do not like your pen. Let me mend it for you. I mend pens remarkably well."

The pen in question was a quill pen.

I own a blue Lumina Van. We refer to it as, "the blue car", "the van", "the Lumina", "the big car", "the Chevy", and other synonyms less complimentary. I hope you don't feel those are mistakes. :-)


Sly Girl - Feb 14, 2003 6:32 pm (#59 of 225)
Good writers tend to use them instead of repeating the same word over and over again. So I am afraid it can't count as a mistake. <<

Whew. I just thought it was because I was anal and hated seeing the same word over and over again. Turns out I'm good!


Rosariana - Feb 14, 2003 8:02 pm (#60 of 225)
Oh ... I thought a quill was different from a pen. I thought it was a feather you dipped in ink! Guess I was wrong. Thanks for clearing that up though!

Nine - Feb 15, 2003 8:33 am (#61 of 225)
It's not anal, SG. Readers hate that as much as writers, unless there's a good reason for repetition. But thinking a quill and a pen are different can be an easy mistake to make, Rosariana. The full name for a quill is a "quill pen", but that's almost never written out, so it can be confusing.

Dr Filibuster - Mar 3, 2003 12:19 pm (#62 of 225)
Ok this is not a true error, it's a typo...but who's typo?

It was brought to my attention on the Harry's Scar thread. In GoF Chapter 36 "The Parting of the Ways" Fudge says;"

You'll forgive me, Dumbledore, but I've heard of a curse scar acting as an alarm bell before..."

I have the UK paperback Bloomsbury book. Others who have the US Scholastic (sp?) first edition hardback say their version has the words "NEVER heard of".

Is my version a one-off typo or a corrected one?

Is it a UK/US thing?

Prefect Marcus - Mar 3, 2003 3:18 pm (#63 of 225)
Edited by Mar 3, 2003 3:19 pm
I would guess so. The American editors seem to catch far more of those little typos than the British editors.

I suspect comparing the British and the American editors in this way is not really fair. I would bet money that the Americans work mainly from the already edited British version. Therefore any error the Brits found, the Americans automatically avoid.

You also have the Americans paying closer attention to the meanings of the words and passages since they are doing a "translation." So they are more likely to catch the ancestor/descendent goof and the like.

Denise S. - Mar 3, 2003 7:26 pm (#64 of 225)
Uhhh...but even tho British and American takes different stands on the meaning of the word "jumper", I don't see how that could have been "translated"--it would have been the same on either side of the ocean. Can any other people with British versions of different prints/editions shed light on this?

Prefect Marcus - Mar 3, 2003 7:32 pm (#65 of 225)
Edited by Mar 3, 2003 7:35 pm
Denise S. "I have not the pleasure of understanding you. Of what are you talking?"

Denise S. - Mar 3, 2003 7:51 pm (#66 of 225)
Edited by Mar 3, 2003 7:51 pm

sly look* Alright, Prefect Marcus, I know what you're asking, but I don't know what you're asking about. Do you mean I wasn't clear in my previous post, or are you showing that English indeed needs to be drastically translated for the simple Americans? ;-)

(Notice: everyone, I say "simple Americans" sarcastically, as I usually do not insult myself!)

W J - Mar 3, 2003 11:05 pm (#67 of 225)
I have the English versions published by Raincoast Books in Canada. The word "never" is omitted in this edition also.

Jennifer Raye - Mar 4, 2003 2:46 am (#68 of 225)
Hi guys,

I have the English versions, as published in London, but not the originals. My copy does not say 'never' and everytime i read that sentance i don't really get the point of it. I think it would make much more sense if the 'never' was left in.

I don't know if this will count but as a hard and fast error but from CoS pg122:

"....I put my wand to his throat - I then screwed up my remaining strength and performed the immensely complex Homorphus charm - he let out a piteous moan - go on, Harry- higher that that - good - the fur vanished - the fangs shrank - and he turned back into a man. Simple, yet effective - and another village will remember me forever as the hero who delivered them from the monthly terror of werewolf attacks."

Now, I know Lockhart didn't actually do this but we are told later on that someone else did. And if the monthly threat of attacks is removed then presumably this charm stops the werewolf ever being a wolf again - so why doesn't someone just perform this spell on Lupin????????

Prefect Marcus - Mar 4, 2003 8:33 am (#69 of 225)
Denise S.

I was referring to the sentence, "Uhhh...but even tho British and American takes different stands on the meaning of the word "jumper", I don't see how that could have been "translated"--it would have been the same on either side of the ocean."

Could you please clarify your meaning?


Yes, I have thought about that little problem too. Perhaps it is a difficult and highly dangerous charm to perform. I am afraid that falls under rule #4.


Asktqa - Mar 4, 2003 10:18 am (#70 of 225)
My theory on that Homorphus Charm is that Lockhart wiped the memory of the only person that could perform it.

Dr Filibuster - Mar 4, 2003 2:47 pm (#71 of 225)
Thanks to everyone who posted regarding my question. I have visions of you all around the world furiously looking up the quote in your books. I love the Lexicon Forum, anyone else would just give me a funny look if I asked them.

Jennifer, it would be more straight forward if Fudge said "never", but I think it sounds more intriging without.

This doesn't strike me as the kind of thing an editor would automatically think "I know I shall put in the word "never" here". Perhaps they checked with JKR? Maybe she read the first version and had them corrected?

When we interview her Jennifer, you ask about the Homorphus Charm and I'll ask about the curse scar.

My book was purchased in September 2001 by the way.

Kathy Lynch - Mar 4, 2003 3:03 pm (#72 of 225)
My take on the Homorphus Charm was that the reason it was so immensely difficult was that Lockheart made it up. If he had published that account, and it was remotely true, i think SOMEONE would have told Lupin to go see Lockheart about performing it for him. Dumbledore, for instance might have suggested it if he thought it was a real spell. Surely HE could perform it.

Cliff Hamaker - Mar 4, 2003 7:39 pm (#73 of 225)
Edited by Mar 4, 2003 7:39 pm
Of course, we can't take a characters word for it, Gilderoy was narcissistic and did anything for little bit more glory. So, who knows? Maybe he said he preformed a "Homorphus Charm" and no one bothered to question it because they arent as great as Gilderoy. Sorry, I can't really write it out well....

What I'm saying is, what if Gilderoy "spiced" things up and in reality the person who actually just killed the werewolf? I mean, Gilderoy gets mercy points and endears his fans to him even more.... Awwwww.....*barf*.....

Denise S. - Mar 4, 2003 7:56 pm (#74 of 225)
"Uhhh...but even tho British and American takes different stands on the meaning of the word "jumper", I don't see how that could have been "translated"--it would have been the same on either side of the ocean."

Alright, sorry about the vagueness. There are some language differences between British English and American English. For instance, the word "jumper" in British is sweater, whereas in American it's a dress. Therefore, in order for people in the U.S. to not think Harry and Ron are cross-dressing, the British "jumper" is changed to American "sweater".

However, something like "I've heard of a scar acting as a warning before" would be same whether written in British or American. There would be no need to translate it, and therefore, the adding of the word "never" would not be as a result of needing to translate it for Americans. It only serves to completely change the sentence and to cause this great shuffling of pages throughout the homes of Lexicon members and hopefully future questions for JKR herself, because I for one have no idea why they're different.

Is this understandable?

Cliff Hamaker - Mar 4, 2003 7:58 pm (#75 of 225)
I think some editor is just being REALLY evil..... Wink
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 1440
Join date : 2011-02-19
Age : 49
Location : France

Back to top Go down

How many "Hard and Fast" errors are there? (adapted) Condensed Thread Empty How many "Hard and Fast" errors are there? (adapted) Condensed Thread - Part 2

Post  Elanor Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:47 am

Denise S. - Mar 4, 2003 9:21 pm (#76 of 225)
Well, it has given us something to talk about (what is it, 106 days now?)...

anbigin - Mar 4, 2003 10:14 pm (#77 of 225)
Edited by Mar 4, 2003 10:15 pm
My comment on the whole Lockheart and Werewolf thing would be along the lines of what Cliff thinks. Meaning that maybe the guy who really did perform the spell killed the werewolf effectively eliminating the threat to the various village peoples, and Lockheart being ever the drama queen just added the extra mercy parts.

This still doesn't explain why none of the other werewolves out there didn't go knocking on Lockheart's door begging for assistance. Which brings me to the point of what exactly does Lockheart say he does to the werewolf? Does he kill it or change it back to normal forever or what? BOOKS HERE I COME!

Kathy Lynch - Mar 5, 2003 7:36 am (#78 of 225)
That's my point, no one came knocking on Lockheart's door to ask him to perform the spell because he MADE IT UP. That's my theory. He's apparently just SO darn charming that no one's called him on it. And really, how many werewolves do you think people like Mrs. Weasley (who make up the majority of his fan base)would be coming into contact with, anyway?

parma - Mar 7, 2003 3:52 pm (#79 of 225)
Edited by Mar 7, 2003 3:56 pm
Well, I'm sure some people don't consider this a mistake, but I do: "Percy wouldn't recognize a joke if it danced naked in front of him wearing Dobby's tea cozy." GoF, page 384 American hardcover.

I also consider the missing Avada Kedavra from the Priori Incantatem near the end of GoF to be a mistake, although I'm not convinced that there is not another explanation. If it is not explained by the end of book seven, then it will be a real mistake.

Cliff Hamaker - Mar 7, 2003 5:53 pm (#80 of 225)
How is your first one a mistake, parma?

And as to your second, my belief is that it is only completed spells that come out, if you're referring to the botched Avada on Harry.

Also, to the Lockhart thing. How many celebrities do you know that you can go up to THEIR door and ask them for an autograph? Let alone a "complex" Homorphous Charm? (I mean, they're WEREWOLVES. Look what happened when Lupin was discovered!!!!)

Madam Poppy - Mar 7, 2003 6:23 pm (#81 of 225)
In Chamber of Secrets, Chapter Eleven, Harry is in the hospital but the text is: "Harry woke up on Sunday morning to find the dormitory blazing with winter sunlight". When he woke up in Prisoner of Azkaban (Chapter 21) again in the hospital, the text is: "He was lying in the dark hospital wing. At the very end of the ward". The use of the word dormitory instead of ward is incorrect.

Cliff Hamaker - Mar 7, 2003 6:45 pm (#82 of 225)
Missed that one. Good eye!

Nine - Mar 8, 2003 8:06 am (#83 of 225)
Cliff, you are right, it's not likely that anyone (especially a werewolf) would just be able to go up to Lockhart and ask him for anything except an autograph. Which he'd give even if you didn't ask.

But I must argue with Kathy's point. How do we know that there aren't ditzy female werewolves that are Lockhart fans, Kathy? Wink

Prefect Marcus - Mar 8, 2003 2:13 pm (#84 of 225)
Madam Poppy, I will have to examine that one. It might be just a synonym to call the ward a dormitory.


Madam Poppy - Mar 9, 2003 8:55 pm (#85 of 225)
Edited by Mar 9, 2003 8:57 pm
In Sorcerer's Stone alone I found 3 examples. In Chapter 7, "Percy directed the girls through one door to their dormitory..." and in Chapter 9, Madam Hooch says, regarding an injured Neville, "while I take this boy to the hospital wing!", in Chapter 17, "Harry...realized he must be in the hospital wing." So far Prisoner of Azkaban is the only book in which I have found the word "ward" used. I'll keep looking...

parma - Mar 11, 2003 9:28 am (#86 of 225)
Edited by Mar 11, 2003 9:36 am
Cliff, to answer your question (a bit late, sorry, been having computer problems), um, well, if you are wearing something, anything, then you are not naked. So a "joke" or... someone, would not be dancing naked if it/he/she was wearing a tea cozy (or anything else).

As for the Priori Incantatem, Dumbledore only says "One of the wands will force the other to regurgitate spells it has performed in reverse order." (p. 697 American hardcover). I choose to take this literally, and believe that *all* spells come back out, whether they are murders or other spells, whether they are "botched" (neat word) or not. I do, however, also respect your belief that some spells are "skipped" if you will; I choose to think otherwise. I do not consider the Avada Kedavra to have failed completely, as it stripped Voldy of his body and powers. But there is nothing in the book that states specifically that some spells do not appear in the Priori Incantatem (and only Dumbledore's word that they all are if you take him literally), so that is why I'm choosing to consider this a mistake. Dumbledore only says "spells it has performed" and the Avada Kedavra was certainly "performed". I know we're not supposed to take a character's word for something, as per one of the "rules", but we are all having to choose to believe something about the Priori Incantatem one way or the other, and this is what I think.

And Nine, you touched on an important point I try to keep in mind: just because we don't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

Sly Girl - Mar 11, 2003 9:37 am (#87 of 225)
Well, Parma.. the tea cozy that Ron is referring to is on Dobby's head not his person. So yes, if Percy were to wear nothing but Dobby's tea cozy (which would be on his head) the rest of him would be naked.

I don't think that line is a mistake at all. It's a joke.

parma - Mar 11, 2003 10:30 am (#88 of 225)
Exactly, it is supposed to be funny; I never said it wasn't. And if you read my original post on the subject, number 79, the very first thing I say is "Well, I'm sure some people don't consider this a mistake", so you don't have to tell me that, I already knew that... and if anyone chooses to think that the word naked means "the rest of him would be naked" that's fine with me; I acknowledged right up front that there are differing viewpoints. I'm looking at the word's definition, and the word naked means naked, not partially clothed, or wearing only a hat, or anything else, so that's why I believe what I said; however, I'm not trying to argue with anyone, that's the last thing I want to do. And I'm not sure that having a discussion about this particular word is entirely appropriate on this forum.

Kathy Lynch - Mar 11, 2003 10:39 am (#89 of 225)
Well, i suppose there COULD be ditzy female werewolves.... but i just go back to thinking that if there WERE such a thing as the Homorphus Charm,(or any OTHER spell that could cure a werewolf of his affliction.) Dumbledore would have performed it for Lupin. Dumbledore is supposed to be the most powerful wizard around, he could have done it.

Madam Poppy - Mar 11, 2003 11:07 am (#90 of 225)
In Prisoner of Azkaban PB , Chapter Five, p. 72. "Harry and Ron led the way to the end of the train...to a carriage that looked quite empty. They loaded the trunks onto it, stowed Hedwig and Crookshanks in the luggage rack, then went back outside to say goodbye to Mr. & Mrs. Weasley."

On page 74 "Harry, Ron, and Hermione set off down the corridor, LOOKING FOR AN EMPTY COMPARTMENT, but all were full except for the one at the very end of the train."

I'm not sure if this is an error on the author's part or not. Did she forget this compartment is exactly where their belongings had previously been stored? Why didn't she say the kids returned to their compartment?

Nine - Mar 11, 2003 4:03 pm (#91 of 225)
Thinking back to the quote parma mentioned, maybe the joke was wearing the tea cozy and Percy was supposed to be naked. Or vice versa. That particular quote is oddly phrased.

Maybe there are multiple compartments in a carriage, Madam Poppy.

I don't really think the Homorphus Charm exists, Kathy. I just think that Lockhart could quite easily have werewolves (female only) among his fans. But that's Lockhart's problem to deal with, because he's the one misrepresenting himself in print. We didn't do it.

Cliff Hamaker - Mar 11, 2003 7:02 pm (#92 of 225)
There was a bit before about Muggle werewolves.... FB says that there are Muggle werewolves. So, just an FYI.

Madam Poppy, when they go back on page 74, is that when they find Lupin? Cuz if it is, it might've been missed in a rewrite. I know I do that ALL the time looking over English papers. TONS of points off over the years.... terrible, really....

Carina - Mar 11, 2003 7:32 pm (#93 of 225)
I think the word "carriage" refers to the cars of the train and the compartments are the little rooms in each car. There are probably three or four compartments to a carriage.

Madam Poppy - Mar 11, 2003 9:43 pm (#94 of 225)
Edited by Mar 11, 2003 9:44 pm
I was listening to my Prisoner of Azkaban tapes and I think I heard another "oops". PB p. 338 In the Shrieking Shack, Ron is injured and on the floor beside the bed. On p. 341 "Ron crawled to the four-poster and collapsed onto it". But then on p. 343 when Lupin bursts into the room, "His eyes flickered over Ron, lying on the floor." But on p. 350, "Harry caught him (Ron) and pushed him back down to the bed." Either J.K.R. forgot for a moment that Ron was on the bed, or she did not remember to move him from the bed, to the floor and then back to the bed. This is a complicated scene with a number of characters to keep track of, check it out for yourself.

Carina - Mar 11, 2003 9:52 pm (#95 of 225)
Edited by Mar 11, 2003 10:00 pm
In my book(s... both the American and British versions read almost identical here), Crookshanks is on the bed and Ron is on the floor when Harry first enters the room. Later on, Ron attempts to get up, but his leg can not support him and he falls back down, possibly on the bed?

parma - Mar 12, 2003 2:55 pm (#96 of 225)
Edited by Mar 12, 2003 2:57 pm
You are right, there are continuity problems with that scene, but I suppose people will explain it as just some actions not being put in the text. It could be that Ron moved from the floor to the bed or back without the narrator telling us, and I have never broken my leg, but I would think a person with a painful broken leg would move as little as possible, so I wondered about exactly where Ron was. I've always thought that scene was a bit off, I'm glad someone else noticed too!

Nine - Mar 12, 2003 3:32 pm (#97 of 225)
Edited by Mar 12, 2003 3:32 pm
In mine (British first edition, I think), between the first two events Madam Poppy mentioned was when Hermione and Ron help Harry fight Sirius, and before the third one, Ron tries to leave or move away but overbalances (I don't remember when he got back on the bed before this). So it is possible that after the fight Ron collapses on the floor. I don't know when he gets back on the bed afterwards, though.

parma - Mar 12, 2003 4:52 pm (#98 of 225)
I don't have my book in front of me right now, sorry, I'll have to look up the exact text later. Another thing about that scene, though, is when Sirius talks about Crookshanks and says something like "this cat, Crookshanks did you call him?" but I didn't see where anyone in the room had called Crookshanks by name, so how did Sirius know his name?

Madam Poppy - Mar 12, 2003 5:00 pm (#99 of 225)
My mother writes Regency romance books for Signet and she has had me read through several of her books for continuity. If a person is in the room, the writer has to place them there. If a door always squeaks when you open it on page 15, you have to remember to make it squeak on page 200. Every author needs help to make sure that what they envisioned is in fact, clear to the reader. I blame any errors in the books on a editor that wasn't paying close attention.

Madam Poppy - Mar 12, 2003 5:18 pm (#100 of 225)
You are correct Parma, the text never mentions Crookshanks by name before Sirius does. Ron, Crookshanks and Sirius were alone together for a few minutes. It is possible that Ron mentioned it before Harry and Hermione enter the Shrieking Shack.

Speaking of Crookshanks, did you ever notice that after Peter zaps Crookshanks and knocks him out, the "cat" is not mentioned again until the kids are on the train and heading home for the summer? Poor Kitty.

Sly Girl - Mar 12, 2003 6:04 pm (#101 of 225)
At the risk of being pounced and trumbled on again, could I point out that while in Padfoot form, Sirius seems to be able to communicate with Crookshanks? Sirius talks as though the two had some sort of communication going on. Perhaps Crookshanks told him his name.

Hedwig - Mar 12, 2003 7:01 pm (#102 of 225)
This might just be the american version but in sorcerer's stone, it says on page 122:

"And now there were only three people left to be sorted. "Thomas, Dean," a Black boy even taller than Ron[...]"Turpin, Lisa" [...]and then it was Ron's turn[...]"Well done, Ron, exceleent," said Percy Weasley pompously across Harry as "Zabini, Blaise" was made a Slytherin."

JK says three people but then there are four left. Again, it might just be the american version (it annoys me to death that they made all those changes) but I just thought I'd mention it just in case.

Cliff Hamaker - Mar 12, 2003 7:12 pm (#103 of 225)
I really think American editors need to step it up a notch. I mean, c'mon!

parma - Mar 12, 2003 8:27 pm (#104 of 225)
Yes, I agree that many of these errors are really editing lapses. And I really hate to admit that, since I've been an editor (and writer) for 20 years, so I'm bashing my own profession. But it sure looks like an editor should have caught a lot of these things (I know I did). Maybe the original poster should have a rule about editing errors.

Madam Poppy - Mar 12, 2003 8:41 pm (#105 of 225)
Well, Parma, J.K.R. should have had a set of proofs to read through. She would have had final approval before it went to press. I think if it is an error, and we caught it, it should count.

parma - Mar 12, 2003 9:04 pm (#106 of 225)
Edited by Mar 12, 2003 9:19 pm
Some of these things seems so obvious to us, though, don't they? I wonder if they weren't caught because they were rushing to get the books out, as it has been mentioned before? Or are we just more observant ;o) I just hope that means that since the fifth book is supposedly not being rushed, there will be fewer errors. Oh well, I guess I'm rambling now.

As for the Crookshanks thing, it is certainly possible the cat told Sirius his own name, Sirius only says something like he was able to communicate somehow. I don't think it would be any type of communication us muggles could understand, though. But from the way Sirius phrased the question "Crookshanks did you call him" it seems like Sirius heard someone else call the cat by the name of Crookshanks (although it's not clear who Sirius meant when he said "you"), otherwise Sirius would have said something like "this cat says you call him Crookshanks". Well, this is certainly becoming a strange conversation....

W J - Mar 12, 2003 10:37 pm (#107 of 225)
I still think that the last 2 books were rushed, especially GoF, because the publishers wanted to keep the HP excitement going. I blame the editors and the publishers for these errors. I am not sure that JKR was given time to read a final proof.

She is well aware of all the errors and I think that she was especially not pleased about that wand order error. That is why she has flat out refused to rush the 5th book. She said in an interview that she would take the time to edit extensively before she gave it to her publishers. She wants an error free product.

She was a new author for the first books and has said herself that she did anything her publishers asked her to because she was so happy that they liked her story. Now however she is in a position of power and can make decisions for herself. She can tell her publishers to take their time and do it right or else.

Sly Girl - Mar 13, 2003 9:06 am (#108 of 225)
Edited by Mar 13, 2003 9:07 am
So maybe she should put out Author's Editions of the first 4 books... Wink

parma - Mar 13, 2003 3:21 pm (#109 of 225)
Oh, I *like* that idea, SG!

I dug out my copy of PoA and went through those last few chapters again, and I couldn't find anywhere someone said Crookshanks' name out loud before Sirius said "This cat -- Crookshanks, did you call him? -- told me Peter had left blood on the sheets...". And there are several places where Ron is on the floor when he should be on the bed, and vice versa. But I suppose since the focus in this scene is more on Harry, Remus, Sirius, and Peter, and less on Crookshanks and Ron, the author and editor concentrated less on the minor characters, as it were. So some actions and words were left out I guess, and I agree the editor should have caught that.

Nine - Mar 13, 2003 4:46 pm (#110 of 225)
I think (British edition) that I checked and Crookshanks was mentioned earlier. I'm not sure, though. I might have come to the conclusion that Crookshank's name was mentioned earlier, before everyone came in.

I do think that Sirius and Crookshanks can communicate; it was fairly clearly implied in those chapters. Crookshanks is a clever Kneazle/cat, Sirius is in dog form but with human brains (and I believe Professor McGonagall, the first time she mentions him, says that he and James were both very smart), so they probably figured out a way of communicating.

Cliff Hamaker - Mar 13, 2003 6:38 pm (#111 of 225)
Ok, I got it ALL figured out...

On page 333(American PB), right after they hear the axe thud and are getting away from Hagrid's hut, Scabbers is freaking out and then Harry sees Crookshanks coming towards them. Hermione moans,"Crookshanks! No, go away, Crookshanks! Go away!" A little bit later, after Ron is out from under the Invisibility Cloak and Padfoot comes over and drags him away. I assume, and I think I'm correct, that he was nearby while Hermione moaned "Crookshanks..." That's when he heard the name.

Second, the mistake in Ron being on the bed or the floor. The mistake is when she said he was on the floor because there are later references to him being on the bed without him getting back on the bed.

My two knuts Wink

Nine - Mar 14, 2003 1:59 pm (#112 of 225)
I knew it had been solved somehow! Thanks, Cliff, I couldn't remember but I knew I'd come up with a way to explain that.

Dr Filibuster - Mar 15, 2003 6:13 am (#113 of 225)
I vote for Parma and Madam Poppy to proof read OoP!

Who asked about that "four people to be sorted" from the first book? WJ spotted that one ages ago on another discussion.

It looks like an American typo. The British version reads; "And now there were only three people left to be sorted. Turpin, Lisa became a Ravenclaw and then it was Ron's turn.....Well done, Ron, excellent, said Percy Weasley pompously across Harry as Zabini, Blaise was made a Slytherin.

Dean doesn't get a mention in the sorting. He makes his first appearance later. No reference has ever been made to his ethnic origin.

Carina - Mar 15, 2003 11:25 am (#114 of 225)
Do early British editions include Dean? I would think that SS would have LESS errors than PS because of the release dates. Also, it seems kind of random to me that Scholastic would add that line in if it wasn't in the Bloomsbury edition.

curiouser and curiouser...

parma - Mar 16, 2003 9:20 pm (#115 of 225)
Edited by Mar 16, 2003 9:23 pm
Proofread OoP? Oh YEAH, I'll take that job!! They wouldn't even have to pay me! Heck, I would even pay them!

Yes, Cliff and Nine, that has got to be it. I went back a bit farther in the book and found what you are talking about. Hermione says Crookshanks name at least twice, and it is another maybe half a minute before Padfoot attacks them, but he had to have been close enough to hear Hermione then.

As for the mistake about 3 or 4 people left to be sorted, and the British and American editions being different... I thought I had heard that the British and American editions are edited at the same time, by different people; that is, there is one edition that is given to both people at the same time and they each come up with their own edited version. So it was not the British edition being given to the American editor and *then* the American editor went to work. Is that right? (It has been a long day, hope I explained that clearly.) Or is the editing done some other way? Does anyone know?

If the British edition was edited and then given to the American editor, there would be no reason for the American editor to add in another student to be sorted, that doesn't seem to make sense. But if one edition was given to both people at the same time, then it would be plausible that the British editor caught the error and took out a student (but why not just change the 3 to a 4 and leave the student in?), and the American editor didn't catch the error. Definitely curioser.

Madam Poppy - Mar 16, 2003 11:06 pm (#116 of 225)
Parma, I'm ready to pack a suitcase at a moments notice. You contact Bloomsbury and let me know when we're suppose to be there. Pack plenty of Post-it-Notes, quills and your copies of Books 1-4. See you soon? We can dream.....

Nine - Mar 17, 2003 5:56 pm (#117 of 225)
Wasn't at the same time, parma. SS came noticeably after PS (I believe), and I think the same thing happened with the different versions of CoS.

Dogs have a pretty good sense of hearing, so yes, Padfoot was likely close enough.

Carina - Mar 17, 2003 5:58 pm (#118 of 225)
Edited by Mar 17, 2003 5:59 pm

I thought that PS was released and then Scholastic bought the rights and released it as SS later. I think CoS was released in the UK before the US as well, but after that, it worked like you said, simultaneously.

I've always wondered why not change the 3 to a 4... seems just as easy to me as taking out a whole line would be.

edit: heh... beat me to it, Nine!

Nine - Mar 17, 2003 6:19 pm (#119 of 225)
Wink Great minds think alike, Carina. It's great to have my information verified, since I wasn't sure.

Carina - Mar 17, 2003 6:23 pm (#120 of 225)
My sentiments exactly! Smile

parma - Mar 18, 2003 8:52 am (#121 of 225)
Yeah, you guys/gals are great! People on this forum know the answer to just about any question that gets asked, and some of you like Nine and Carina and others seem to know at least a bit about every subject, most times more than a bit, a lot.

I suppose they really need to do simultaneous editing for British and American versions now, since they are so popular now. Anyway, that mistake about the 3 or 4 people has definitely got to be counted as a "hard and fast" error somewhere.

Caput Draconis - Mar 18, 2003 10:02 pm (#122 of 225)
Hello there. I was just reading PS, the Midnight Duel. Our trio plus Neville leave the portrait of the Fat Lady, which is located on the 7th floor. They move along several corridors, then pg 117 "They sped up a staircase to the 3rd floor..." I would have thought they'd be going down from the 7th to reach the 3rd, unless it's all put down to the magical functionings of Hogwarts. I claim to have discovered nothing, as y'all are quite adept at defusing these little 'error' claims Smile Peace.

Denise S. - Mar 19, 2003 1:51 pm (#123 of 225)
Aw, Caput Draconis, no guts no glory! :-)

Nine - Mar 19, 2003 3:06 pm (#124 of 225)
Besides, it's fun to defuse the errors. Had they reached the trophy room yet? If the trophy room is on the first or second floor, they could have gone upstairs to get to the third floor. If they hadn't reached it yet, then I will allow someone else to prove or disprove it as a hard and fast error.

Caput Draconis - Mar 19, 2003 11:18 pm (#125 of 225)
Edited by Mar 19, 2003 11:18 pm
Goin' down in a blaze of glory, baby...

The trophy room is the one they were trying to reach, and is located on the third floor. The rest of that sentence is "They sped up a staircase to the third floor and tiptoed toward the trophy room". They leave, Hermione gets locked out, "they hadn't even reached the end of the corridor" when she comes and converses with the boys, they find Neville on the ground, then go "forward", "flitted along corridors" and "turn". There is no mention of any up or down movement between the time they left the Fat Lady and the time they went up this here staircase from the 7th to the 3rd floor.


parma - Mar 20, 2003 7:58 am (#126 of 225)
You're right Caput, I'm looking at the American paperback version, and I don't see them going up or down until they "sped up a staircase to the third floor" on page 157.

laveta townsend - Mar 21, 2003 8:51 am (#127 of 225)
Unless Fudge is really one of the Death Eaters. Which maybe why he brought a Dementor with him into the school to give the kiss of death to Crouch before he could expose Fudge.

Madam Poppy - Mar 30, 2003 6:26 pm (#128 of 225)
Prefect Marcus must have checked into St. Mungo's, we haven't heard from him since March 8th. I was hoping for an updated list of true errors before the new book comes out. Maybe someone should send him a message by owl?

Cliff Hamaker - Mar 30, 2003 7:01 pm (#129 of 225)
laveta, I think Fudge is some way connected to the DE's and Voldy. Theres too much evidence for the connection for it not to be true. (Sorry about the wording on that...)

Landman - Mar 31, 2003 7:22 am (#130 of 225)
In GoF, Chapter 9 - The Dark Mark:

Harry, Ron, and Hermoine start to run away from the Mark, when -

"...a series of popping noises announced the arrival of twenty wizards, appearing from thin air, surrounding them."

Surround means to encircle, so I picture HRH with 20 wizards in a circle around them. This is confirmed because "Harry whirled around ..." and noticed all the wizards had their wands out and pointed at them. HRH then yell 'duck' and hit the ground.

"'STUPEFY!' roared twenty voices"

Two problems with this:

The question, then, is wouldn't most of the twenty wizards be knocked out because they were standing directly in the cross-fire of the wizard opposite them??

We know Winky and the invisible Barty Crouch Jr. were knocked out in the bushes, implying there was a gap in the circle in the one spot that just happened to be hiding them?

azi - Mar 31, 2003 7:26 am (#131 of 225)
Maybe they were just all in a semi-circle. Thats the impression I got when I read it. I never thought about it before now. Harry may have been slightly exaggerating, given the situation one tends to react in when under duress of that kind.

Madam Poppy - Mar 31, 2003 7:42 am (#132 of 225)
Very "well-spotted" Landman, I agree with you. Though I think that the word "surrounding" should have been something like, "and formed a semi-circle near them." Then the following text would make sense.

"Harry whirled around" doesn't have to mean he turned in a full circle. He could be turning to face a group behind him.

Landman - Mar 31, 2003 1:02 pm (#133 of 225)
Thanks, Madam Poppy. Coming from you that is high praise -- I consider you one of the best posters in the forum.

parma - Mar 31, 2003 8:28 pm (#134 of 225)
Landman, when I read that I thought it was mostly a circle around HRH also, but I figured the adult wizards had some kind of protection from the others' spells. Weren't they all ministry employees, if I remember right? They would have some kind of protection, like police officers wear protective clothing. Not that ministry wizards wear protective clothing per se, but they probably have some kind of official protection. Does that make sense? Has this idea been discussed?

Landman - Mar 31, 2003 9:35 pm (#135 of 225)
Well, parma, it's certainly possible, but it's never been explained that protective clothing like that exists before, so I (personally) don't accept it as valid. Of course, everything can be explained away by saying this is a magical world, and JKR may explain it in a later book. It's just a curiousity right now.

shepherdess - Apr 1, 2003 2:21 am (#136 of 225)
When I read it I assumed it was a circle-the question is how tight was the circle? They weren't necessarily standing shoulder-to-shoulder in a very tight circle. I just pictured a loose circle with spaces between them. That way it's still a circle, but easier for Winky and Crouch to be hit and harder for them to hit each other. (But I agree that for not even one of them to be hit is *pretty* lucky.)

parma - Apr 1, 2003 6:12 am (#137 of 225)
I didn't mean protective clothing, I meant protective "something else", maybe protective charm, protective spell, protective aura, whatever. Not something solid or visible. Not clothing. That was just an analogy.

Nine - Apr 1, 2003 10:00 am (#138 of 225)
They wouldn't have had time to put on protective clothing, but I can sort of see the idea of a "protective 'something else'", parma.

Jai - Apr 1, 2003 1:55 pm (#139 of 225)
I found this at a website (http://www.geocities.com/harrys_hideout):

"In Year 3, Harry Potter sees someone strangely familiar across the lake who saves many lives. Later it is revealed that the familiar someone was not at that spot before travelling back in time. So Harry could not have seen him before the time travel."

This seems logical to me, you don't know before someone goes back in time, that he's going back in time, so you won't be able to see him already.

But if this is an error, then the thing that you shouldn't see yourself when you're back in time isn't true. Because then Harry, Ron and Hermione would have seen Harry and Hermione going into Hagrids house when the time was normal (you know what I mean, just when you read the book before the timeturner shows up). Harry and Hermione should have known that that it wasn't going to happen because it didn't already happen, and could have just went into Hagrids house and take Scabbers.

I hope you understand what I mean? Smile

Carina - Apr 1, 2003 10:42 pm (#140 of 225)
That's the problem with time travel... we don't understand it.

I disagree that Harry should not have seen himself because he hadn't gone back yet. He HAD gone back, but in another space and time. He couldn't go into Hagrid's and take out Scabbers because it didn't happen in the other space and time. Remember when Harry said he knew he could cast a Patronus because he already had done it? Present Harry (the timeline we are following in the book) has to do the same things that Future Harry (the one that he sees across the lake) did when FH went back into FH's past (which is PH's present) when PH goes to the past and helps out Past Harry. If Present Harry does something that FH didn't do, Present Harry would mess up the whole space time continuum.


see... I told you no one understands it Wink

Nine - Apr 2, 2003 11:28 am (#141 of 225)
OK, here's another hard and fast error from PoA: When Ron is getting Scabbers' Rat Tonic from the petstore witch, he starts to ask how much it is, but then Crookshanks leaps on his head and Scabbers flees. As far as I can tell, Ron leaves the store without buying the Tonic or even finding out what it costs. But Hermione comes out a few minutes later with Crookshanks and the Rat Tonic, and there's no indication that Ron hadn't paid for it before he left.

Jai - Apr 3, 2003 3:19 am (#142 of 225)
I don't think that's an error, maybe Hermione paid for it (and maybe Ron paid her back later).

parma - Apr 3, 2003 7:59 am (#143 of 225)
When I read that bit, I figured Hermione probably just paid for the rat tonic also when she paid for the cat, but I did wonder why Ron didn't say something like "Thanks, how much do I owe you?" when she gave the tonic to Ron. I would consider this a continuity error, but you could also argue that it was just something left out because the author can't put in every single conversation and didn't consider it significant.

Sly Girl - Apr 3, 2003 10:02 am (#144 of 225)
I too thought Hermione bought it for him. Smile

S.E. Jones - Apr 3, 2003 2:49 pm (#145 of 225)
I assumed that Ron didn't ask how much he owed her because he was to distracted by the fact that she had bought the beast that just tried to eat his rat.

CT Blink - Apr 3, 2003 5:55 pm (#146 of 225)
I think that the Second H&H not showing up on the map could be considered a mistake. How does the map know which H&H is the real one? Never said said Lupin only saw one set of H&H. I assume he was most likly looking at Hargid's hut, becuase he knew the trio were going to go out there. That's how he saw PP. Thus, he might not had noticed if a second H&H show up.

Which brings up how come Fred and George never saw PP (well, it doesn't really, but I'm bringing it up). I never saw the bring deal about this question or even if it could be counted as a mistake. So what if they never noticed him? Prephaps they did, and they just thought he was another student. Its not as if PP's name would be settled in their minds, thinking "PP dead." Espically since the incedent happened when they were kids and PP is not a historical figure that they should know about. His role (PP) is more an aftermath to Voldermort's falling. People in the wizardy countiy most likely think, "Yeah, that does stink, but at least Voldermort is dead." You know, as if not to tarns the "happy" part.

Nine - Apr 4, 2003 12:30 pm (#147 of 225)
Both sets of H&H were real, CT. And don't use the initials "PP", please. Call him Wormtail, Peter, or Scabbers, but those initials correspond to five people in the series. I understood what you meant, but it could be confusing. And I agree with what you're saying; they weren't necessarily going to know who Peter was.

CT Blink - Apr 4, 2003 2:00 pm (#148 of 225)
Then both sets would have showed up then, because they would be real to the map.

Sorry, I thought "PP" was an offical arrabian around here, like HH&R or F&G. For future reference, I'll use Wormtail.

Denise S. - Apr 4, 2003 5:12 pm (#149 of 225)
(CT, it looks like you're getting no end of it!;-) lol)

Nine - Apr 5, 2003 7:30 am (#150 of 225)
Sorry, didn't mean to sound nasty. It's just confusing. When we say HRH or HHR or F&G, everyone knows what they mean because there is only one set of characters that corresponds to that set of letters/initials.

I do think that both sets showed up, I just somehow think that Remus was only looking at one place on the map and, after he saw that Peter was alive, wouldn't have noticed anything else.
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 1440
Join date : 2011-02-19
Age : 49
Location : France

Back to top Go down

How many "Hard and Fast" errors are there? (adapted) Condensed Thread Empty How many "Hard and Fast" errors are there? (adapted) Condensed Thread - Part 3

Post  Elanor Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:48 am

CT Blink - Apr 5, 2003 11:41 am (#151 of 225)
Exactly what I'm saying. Seems logical to me.

I know, Denise, just hows my weeks going. Smile

Denise S. - Apr 5, 2003 9:28 pm (#152 of 225)
(No, Nine, it wasn't you--it's just that CT got similar comments on other threads. You didn't sound nasty:-))

parma - Apr 6, 2003 11:02 am (#153 of 225)
Isn't there a thread that discusses the map thoroughly? There's one thread about where is the map now, but doesn't go into much detail about how the map works. I thought there was another one, but I can't find it. Maybe it was on some other thread that got a bit off-topic.

Anyway, there is some "error" about Hagrid that I noticed but I can't remember, and it has been nagging at me for awhile now. I can't even remember which book it was in. So I decided to browse through CoS, but I couldn't find what I was thinking of. I did find these two things, though, American hardcover, Chapter 14. These are on consecutive pages, maybe that section didn't get proofed very well.

Page 258 Harry is thinking "And if the culprit wasn't caught soon, he was looking at a lifetime back with the Dursleys." Now I really can't imagine that Harry would spend the rest of his life with the Dursleys, once he reaches the age of majority (when he is no longer a minor), he will be out of there as soon as possible. That probably should have said "another five years with the Dursleys" or something like that.

Page 259 "Harry had inherited just one thing from his father: a long and silvery Invisibility Cloak." If he inherited only this one thing from his father, where did all that money in his vault at Gringotts come from?

Sly Girl - Apr 6, 2003 11:18 am (#154 of 225)
Harry probably doesn't think of his money as a thing. Does that make sense? Harry's never had money, living with the Dursley's. And I don't think, in book 2, he'd quite grasped his mind around thinking that money was important. And maybe also, he thinks his 'inheritance' is from his parents as a whole and not just from his Dad, like the cloak is.

parma - Apr 6, 2003 11:47 am (#155 of 225)
Well, on page 259 that sentence starts another section. It is no longer Harry thinking, it is the narrator telling background information about the story. So it is being stated as a fact by the narrator that Harry only inherited one thing, not Harry only thinking about one thing.

W J - Apr 6, 2003 3:49 pm (#156 of 225)
Edited by Apr 6, 2003 3:51 pm
parma, there is a thread called the "Chamber of Secrets" that is actually entirely about the Map. Stupid misleading title.......

And when Harry said a "lifetime" with the Dursleys, to him 5 years was a lifetime. Smile

parma - Apr 6, 2003 4:32 pm (#157 of 225)
Edited by Apr 6, 2003 4:41 pm
Thanks for the pointer to the thread. I agree, I'm sure five years with the Dursleys would seem like a lifetime ;o) As an editor, though, I consider this a mistake, even though I figured that was probably what JKR meant by that. If I was her editor, I would have her rewrite that sentence. Unless this is foreshadowing, and five more years with the Dursleys is really going to be Harry's lifetime (I didn't want to think about that possibility!). Then I would consider the statement correct. As for the other one I mentioned, if I was the editor I would have had her delete the word "only"; that word will get you every time, I try not to use it!

Cliff Hamaker - Apr 6, 2003 7:26 pm (#158 of 225)
Edited by Apr 6, 2003 7:28 pm
I'm with WJ on this. It's just a hyperbole. No mistake about it. (the Harry living with the Dursleys for the rest of his life)

Saralinda - Apr 18, 2003 2:05 pm (#159 of 225)
Edited by Apr 18, 2003 3:06 pm
While one of the rules of this thread is "narrator only," one bit of spoken dialogue troubles me. Sorry if it's already been discussed to death on another thread, but --

In SS, following the Sorting, Nearly Headless Nick tells HRH that he hasn't eaten for "nearly four hundred years." The following year, the other ghosts fete him with a 500th Death Day party. Can ghosts eat for the first century after their demise? Is it likely that in all the excitement of the arriving Firsties, Nick overlooked 99 years? ( Yeah, a decade here, a decade there, before you know it, it adds up to real time )

Anyhow, that's a contradiction that bugs me every time I read Book One.


Meg L. - Apr 18, 2003 2:22 pm (#160 of 225)
Edited by Apr 18, 2003 3:26 pm
Hello, Saralinda. I just wanted to ask if anyone has told you about the wonderful search function that we have! On the turquoise bar, next to "Mark as Read", is a link to a search function that can help you find a relevant thread when you have questions.

I know that we have talked about this statement by NHN before, but I'm not sure if the thread still exists. But I had also noticed on several other threads you had asked about things that we have talked about on various threads. I know how intimidating reading several hundred threads, each with several hundred posts, is, so try that out next time you have a question!

Cheers! Meg

Edit: After I posted this, I realized it sounded a little condescending. That was not my intention! Sorry! Just trying to be helpful! Smile

Saralinda - Apr 18, 2003 3:26 pm (#161 of 225)
I understand. Unfortunately, at the moment I'm on a poky-slow connection (my cable was supposed to be fixed by now!) and I could starve to death waiting for results to come up.

I'll just cease annoying people until my cable is back.

I'm really sorry!


Pinky - Apr 18, 2003 3:38 pm (#162 of 225)
Hey, Saralinda (love your name) - I know what you mean by poky-slow connections. They are a REAL bother. We've all been guilty at one point or another of posting something that's already been posted before. One way to search without using the "search" button is to simply scan the titles of the threads. If you find one that sounds like what you are interested in, try it. Remember to click on "all messages" once you open the thread. This isn't a fail-proof method because of the twists and turns that a thread can take. Many of them end up discussing something that has nothing to do with the original title. But it might help you a little. Smile

Meg L. - Apr 18, 2003 6:48 pm (#163 of 225)
Oh, don't be sorry! I was just wondering if you knew about it! I completely understand your reluctance to use it though - I have an almost dial-up slow connection at work, and its A-G-O-N-I-Z-I-N-G!

Nine - Apr 19, 2003 6:18 am (#164 of 225)
Yes, we do tend to return to the same few topics on every thread at some point or another.

riddle_02 - May 2, 2003 12:41 am (#165 of 225)
I'm sorry i didn't post this in THIS thread to start with- i'm a newbie and i tried to make sure the topic hadn't been discussed before- that'd be embarrassing... but there are so many threads *sobs* i didn't know what to do, so i panicked and started a new one- but now i'm putting my post here, all better! *sighs relieved*

Here it is: (It might be a good idea to re-read chapter 36 of GoF entirely for this to make more sense... )

Please take a closer look at first page of chapter 36, in the Goblet of Fire- notice Dumbledore mentions to Snape to tell Cornelius Fudge: 'I will be in the hospital wing in half an hour's time if he needs me.'

Dumbledore takes Harry to his office to question him (blah blah), then takes him and sirius (who's in dog form) back to hospital wing (blah blah..)

But *then* he leaves saying "I will be back to see you as soon as I have met with Fudge."

The next time we see Dumbledore is when he enters the hospital wing following the yells of McGonagall, Snape and Fudge after Crouch has been de-souled- so I couldn't help thinking…where was Dumbledore???

WHY FUDGE AND DUMBLEDORE DIDN'T MEET AT ALL Dumbledore, in order to see Fudge, would have gone to Moody's office, where Crouch was, (because it was where Dumbledore had instructed snape to tell Fudge where to go. Fudge was informed by snape, obviously, otherwise the soul-suck wouldn't have happened). So Dumbledore would have gone to the office and therefore known about the dementor - excludes possibility of any discussion or meeting b/w Fudge and Dumbledore. (**see last note)

TIMEWISE We don't know how much time, exactly, has passed between Dumbledore's exit from the hospital wing and his return, but it enough time to allow Fudge to bring Crouch a dementor. The Weasleys were still with harry so it couldn't have been way too long, but a few hours could be allowed, otherwise harry wouldn't have woken up under the sleeping draught. The longer the time, the more mystery surrounds what Dumbledore was doing…

REPEAT: DUMBLEDORE *WASN'T* LOOKING FOR FUDGE For those who didn't pick it up above- I'll re-cap: Dumbledore *knows* fudge is with crouch- (because he sent snape to tell fudge where crouch was, and fudge was obviously told otherwise he couldn't have taken his dementor to crouch in the first place.) If Dumbledore had wanted to find Fudge he would have had to have gone to crouch- and thus known about the dementor

WHO ELSE DUMBLEDORE WASN'T WITH Maybe you are thinking- Dumbledore went to see hagrid and maxime- nope, he mentions to mcgonagall pg. 617 to take both to his office later

Dumbledore couldn't have been with Sirius (he was in hospital wing with harry as a dog) snape and Mcgonagall were with Fudge/Crouch, karkaroff had already run away- (snape mentioned it to fudge on pg. 616

Perhaps you are *still *thinking- Dumbledore obviously went to see cedric's parents,duh! he must have run into them…wrong! Flip to page 619 of the same chapter, Dumbledore: "I must see the diggory's." unless you think he'd been interrupted by the yells while speaking to them for the first time… possible, but a bit awkward, and wouldn't he have then said something along the lines of "I must return to speak more with the Diggory's"


Well, is it just looking too much into it- that inconsistencies like this aren't supposed to be picked up by the 'young readers'? (us? young readers? hah!) But you'd think after the wand-order typo in Chapter 34 the book would be combed through… So is it purposeful foreshadowing- is there more to Dumbledore than we presently see at surface level??? Only time- (and the publication of book 5,6 and 7) will tell!

But now here is a question for all of you fans- where do *you* think Dumbledore was? Post here or email me- I lurve email!! (anne_02@go.com)

If you didn't understand any of this, read it again, veeeerrrrryy slooowwwllly, and then if it still doesn't make sense, or you want to argue a point- email me!

But even so, if they had talked, how could Fudge and Dumbledore have discussed either the tournament/Cedric/Crouch *or* Harry without mentioning Voldemort? When Dumbledore informed Fudge, back in the hospital wing, that Cedric was murdered by Voldemort "Fudge looked as though someone had just swung a heavy club club into his face"-pretty weird way to react if he'd been told by Dumbledore previous to this.

~ms riddle

riddle_02 - May 2, 2003 12:42 am (#166 of 225)
For the first line i reference (on first page of ch36) 'if he needs me' --the line isn't really part of the argument as to Dumbledore's whereabouts- I only wanted to include it at the start of my theory to use it in the way I think its meant to be applied in the book- that is, it sets a context: by Dumbldore mentioning Fudge *may* want to speak with him we know: --Dumbledore thinks there's possibility that Fudge will want to talk/ Dumbledore wants to talk- isn't avoiding Fudge for whatever reason

So even if the first line wasn't a definite command to bring Fudge to the infirmary,Dumbledore still leaves the hospital wing with the much more definite 'I will be back to see you as soon as I have met with Fudge.' The reader knows he's been thinking about a talk with Fudge since *before* he even questioned Harry, and its even more unlikely he's just not going to bother going up to crouch's office to see Fudge. Dumbledore by this stage, being as wise as he is, could have possibly been a bit suspicious as to why Fudge hasn't been to see him yet-->or at least be wondering why its taking so long to finish questioning Barty Crouch Jr. See the original post's 'TIMEWISE' point, which explains why I think it was a substantial amount of time that passed when Dumbledore left and returned to the infirmary. The longer the time, the more suspicious Dumbledore would be as well, according to my weird and wonderful logic!…

Generally I believe that the Dumbledore we've come to know in the first four books isn't a person who would just decide to *not* go and see the Minister of Magic after the surrounding events- not without a very good reason…

PS: Oh -i dont really think he'd be speaking to other teachers- when all of the teachers that are the most important to the plot- eg: snape and mcgonagall- are accounted for elsewhere. why would he need to see someone like flitwick or sprout??? is it purposeful misdirection on JK's behalf? Are these teachers more significant than we assume? anyone's guess... maybe trelawney called for him.. (predicting??) hmmm...

riddle-02 - May 2, 2003 6:57 am (#167 of 225)
I've had people say there are no 'wierd things/inconsistencies' in this chapter:

The time b/w Dumbledore leaving and coming back to the infirmary is, in my mind, a major 'wierd thing' in ch36--> Firstly Snape was sent to get Fudge before Harry was questioned- Fudge was on the school grounds, so when Dumbldore left Harry at the infirmary and set off to meet with Fudge, Fudge would have been with Crouch jr. by that time, after "summoning a dementor" for his "personal safety" (i guess it can be excused that the time it took for harry to be questioned was about the time needed for a dementor to be summoned- b/c Fudge was only with Crouch for a short time so the dementor could give its kiss)- so from there the whole thing should have played out pretty quickly:

But...moments before the entrance of Fudge, Snape, McGonagall, and Dumbledore, Harry wakes up, feeling sure its still night-time and like he hadn't been asleep "very long"- but isn't it a little awkward to have something who was just 'dosed up' on dreamless sleeping potion *and* who is as physically and psychologically exhausted as harry was- to have been woken by distant yells after only a mere matter of minutes?

Which means, (if you believe sleeping draughts are only good for 5-minutes of rest), that Dumbledore would have headed straight for crouch and doubled back after hearing the yelling of Fudge and co.

Note: because I believe more time passed, I emphasised the reasons that dumbledore could not be excused as wondering around looking for fudge in my original post. however, of course, if you support the above 5-minute-theory then the emphasis becomes irrelevant. So it all depends on your choice:

either: harry's potion was about as successful as lockhart repairing a broken arm,

or* 'while harry was sleeping' it took fudge ages to get a dementor, and in the latter case- we *still* dont know where dumbledore was, couldn't he have spoken to Fudge while they were waiting for the dementor- so Dumbledore could have prevented it entering the castle in the first place? didn't he ask what was going on with Fudge *at all*? It just doesn't seem like Dumbledore logic to go "oh well, i'll see fudge whenever i feel like it, my pensieve and my pretty phoenix await me, to the magic-mobile, away!"

maybe its part of the 'dumbledore's older and therefore less powerful' reasoning- which i say is *lame*

or..are time turners messing with the books again?? eek.

Nine - May 2, 2003 11:20 am (#168 of 225)
I'm for the theory that Dumbledore went back to the Quidditch stadium to prevent a panic. I don't know why he didn't tell anyone that, though.

Ticker - May 2, 2003 11:41 am (#169 of 225)
Yep - I think so too, Nine. As headmaster, his responsibility is to the entire student body. While he is of course concerned about Harry & Crouch & Fudge (& Voldemort, & Sirius,...), I think hundreds of people on the quidditch field with a dead body & no real explanation would require his attention & leadership.

I agree he was not avoiding Fudge, as he had made an effort to let the Minister know where & when to find him - which is an amazing feat in the midst of chaos.

riddle-02, I know I'm not thinking this through with as great of detail - my hat is off to you & the amount of work you have put into this & your ability to really see the story happen. If it's not too annoying for you, could you let me know what you think about Dumbledore going to the Quidditch field? It just makes sense to me, but again, I don't have the clarity of the sceen like you do. Thanks!

Zelmia - May 2, 2003 5:01 pm (#170 of 225)
Madame Poppy, Fudge knew about the Dementor's Kiss because Snape had just told him what had happened. Harry catches the end of this conversation as he wakes in the hospital wing.

Zelmia - May 2, 2003 5:13 pm (#171 of 225)
Regarding Marcus Flint's presence in Book 3:

At the end of CoS Dumbledore announces that "as a school treat" the end of term exams have been cancelled. Therefore wouldn't Flint have passed automatically? It's a mistake if you ask me, no matter what JKR says.

Carina - May 2, 2003 5:24 pm (#172 of 225)
Zelimia, though I totally agree with you that this is a mistake (it was corrected in my more recent copy of PS), JKR never said WHICH year he repeated. It could have been Harry's first year.

Cliff Hamaker - May 2, 2003 5:50 pm (#173 of 225)
Edited by May 2, 2003 6:53 pm
Or maybe his grades were *so* bad that he would have failed whether he aced his finals or not; therefore, in that situation, the usually beneficial exemption of finals would have been nullified .

Though I would have bet on "not". Wink

Madam Poppy - May 3, 2003 5:06 am (#174 of 225)
Zelmia, Snape says that he doesn't know what made the Dementors retreat. "by the time I had come 'round they were heading back to their positions at the entrances." Snape clearly says he was unconscious when the Dementor tried to "kiss" Harry. Thus Harry was the only one who knew what had happened.

S.E. Jones - May 5, 2003 8:19 pm (#175 of 225)
riddle-02---"...but isn't it a little awkward to have something who was just 'dosed up' on dreamless sleeping potion *and* who is as physically and psychologically exhausted as harry was- to have been woken by distant yells after only a mere matter of minutes?"

If I remember correctly, the reason Harry was awoken so easily and so quickly was because he only sipped the draught and had to later be told to drink it all so that he would sleep through the night. (It's mentioned at the very end of Chapter 36.)

Overall though I really like your theory riddle-02; it's very well thought out and referenced. Keep the good ideas coming and welcome to the forum!

Jackie !Fast - May 9, 2003 5:56 pm (#176 of 225)
I hope this fits all of the qualifications for errors, because I can't figure out a way to reconcile it other than something rather cheap...

At the climactic scene of SS/PS, Harry is below the trapdoor and face to face with Quirrel/Voldy. Quirrel wants the Socerer's Stone, and he obviously can't touch Harry, but why can't he accio (sorry, I mean *summon*) the Stone to him?

My first inclination about this is that he can't summon something off Harry either, because of his magical protection. But if that's the case, Quirrel should have at least TRIED....

Cliff Hamaker - May 9, 2003 6:00 pm (#177 of 225)
Well, why didn't Harry accio the Golden Egg back to him when he dropped it on the staircase in GoF? Smile

I think that Quirrel was far enough under Voldy's thumb to only follow directions from Voldy. And he might not have been that good at charms. Wink

Jai - May 10, 2003 8:23 am (#178 of 225)
When Harry and Cedric are transported to the graveyard in Goblet of Fire, Wormtail kills Cedric with Voldemorts wand. Then he lits the wand. Then he raises the wand when he says "Bone of the father, unknowingly given, you wil lrenew your son!". When Voldemort had risen, he asks Wormtail to robe him. Wormtail takes a black robe from the ground and puts it one-handed over Voldemorts head. Then Voldemort takes out his wand out of his deep pocket. How did it get there? Did Wormtail put it in the pocket when he dressed voldemort? But then wouldn't it be easier to just give it to Voldemort if he still had it?

June - May 10, 2003 9:25 pm (#179 of 225)
Hmm... maybe Voldemaort has always kept the wand with him, no matter what shape or condition he's in? After all... his is a rather special wand, and most suited to him, and his last line of defense, I expect... he probably wouldn't give it to anyone else for safekeeping.

Anyway, just a theory... perhaps he keeps his wand in some kind of subspace pocket, on another plane, such that it'll always be with him, easily retrievable. Far-fetched, I know, but just a theory. =P

Jai - May 11, 2003 11:18 am (#180 of 225)
But Wormtail did have the wand to kill Cedric, if he killed Cedric with his own wand Cedric wouldn't come out of Voldemorts wand at Priori Incantatem.

azi - May 12, 2003 10:48 am (#181 of 225)
Maybe it was left at Godric's Hollow and no one realised. I don't think it would be too hard to steal even if the Ministry of Magic had it in their possession. There are loads of possibilities. After all, Voldie and Wormatail did have quite a few months before the duel so maybe they retrived the wand by getting Crouch Sr. to get it while he was under the imperious curse.

Jai - May 12, 2003 10:54 am (#182 of 225)
I think you both didn't understand my post, it's about that Voldemort's wand is in his pocket when he rised again, but Wormtail didn't have a chance to put it there.

Saralinda - May 12, 2003 10:54 am (#183 of 225)
Is it possible that Wormtail tucked it into the pocket of the robe so he wouldn't have to hold it in his teeth while he dressed Voldie, since he only had one hand at the time?

:: Only just now realizing that Voldemort was buck naked when he came out of the cauldron. I really didn't need that image in my head ::

Jai - May 12, 2003 11:07 am (#184 of 225)
Yes that's possible indeed... but could he have put a wand in a deep pocket while taking the robe from the ground just with one hand? It would have made more sense if Wormtail gave the wand to Voldemort the second he had risen, before he dressed him? I could see Wormtail doing that with as many subservience as he could show, hoping that Voldemort would give him a new hand as quickly as he could.

azi - May 13, 2003 10:42 am (#185 of 225)
Nah, he was too busy sobbing on the ground. He's a wimp like that. I can't see him doing it. Voldemort ordered Wormtail to dress him - if he disobey's orders then it will take longer to get his hand back. And Voldie had a very short temper.

Lars Smedberg - May 15, 2003 10:34 am (#186 of 225)
In HP#2, Ch. 17, Ginny says : "I've looked forward to coming to Hogwarts ever since Bill came..."

Considering the age difference between Ginny and Bill; was she even born when Bill came to Hogwarts ?

It was interesting reading here about Dean Thomas; if I'm correct, it's only in the AMERICAN edition of HP#1 that Dean Thomas is described as "a Black Boy, even taller than Ron" ? I've only read the English Edition and the Swedish translation (based on the English Edition), and in neither of them, it's described how Dean looks. I remember him being played by a black actor in the movies, but that's another thing...

Besides, there is one thing I would like to mention ! I've read somewhere (not here, though...) that it is a mistake in the chapter "The Sorting Hat" in HP#1 (the English Edition, that is !) when it says : "And now there were only three people left to be sorted" - that is; Lisa, Ron and Blaise, but it ought to have been four; Dean, Lisa, Ron and Blaise. But then you forget something important ! When Harry has been sorted and sent to Gryffindor, not Slytherin, he is so exalted that he, for a short while, stops noticing some thing - including the sortings that follows. Instead of noticing which kid(s) are the next to be sorted, he starts looking at The High Table, at Hagrid and Professor Dumbledore... His attention doesn't return to the Sorting Ceremony until there are only three kids left; there might even have been one or two kids except Dean between Harry and Lisa, who Harry didn't notice !

Madam Poppy - May 16, 2003 5:43 am (#187 of 225)
By the way, welcome to The Forum Lars! I know that the Sorting Hat dilemma has been discussed before, but I like your explanation the best. As for the "politically correct Dean Thomas", I think it was Scholastics attempt to make the books appeal to the American market.

NoVeil4Me - May 16, 2003 5:49 am (#188 of 225)
I have found that there are changes even among the American editions. My first copies of the series are hardbacks that came in a 3 pack prior to GoF being released..as in about a year prior. I picked up some paperback copies a few weeks ago. I was reading PoA and it says that even Stan's pimples turned white (this was after Harry used V name). Now, I am almost certain that my hardback edition says even Stan's spots turned white. I just found it interesting that they let an English expression through in the older edition but changed it for a newer one.

Nine - May 16, 2003 11:18 am (#189 of 225)
I think it's "pimples" in the British edition of PoA, Denise.

Sly Girl - May 20, 2003 10:58 pm (#190 of 225)
Not sure if this has been mentioned, my search pulled up nada.. but I just noticed something in CoS- British Version,Hardback-Chpt 10, page 126-2nd new paragraph-

Wood is lecturing the team before the Match and in the middle of that speech/pep talk is a joke by George Weasley in parentheses ('Too true,'muttered George Weasley. 'I haven't been properly dry since August.')

Now earlier in the same book Harry makes a point of telling Dobby that 'school term starts September 1st'. So.... was the team practicing Quidditch before Harry even got there or is this an honest mistake and she wrote the wrong month?

S.E. Jones - May 21, 2003 1:42 pm (#191 of 225)
I think he meant since August was over, i.e. since September (the school year) started.

Sly Girl - May 21, 2003 2:51 pm (#192 of 225)
But they don't even start praticing until after the first week is over, and even then they don't practice really because Slytherin gets Snape to write a note for the pitch....

Meg L. - May 21, 2003 3:15 pm (#193 of 225)
I think that he was exaggerating, SG... Smile

Peter Shrink - May 22, 2003 2:36 pm (#194 of 225)
Wand order: I think this error is much bigger than a minor glitch. I read "Goblet" as one long adult-initiation ritual. At the end of the book, Harry can stand up and say "I am a man". To me, this means that when he meets Voldemort, he should be thinking of his father, not his mother. It may be stereotypical, but boys are more likely think of their moms in times of stress, while a man will think of his father. I think this is probably why the error of the wand order disturbs Rowling so much. By changing the person Harry is thinking about during the Third Task and in the graveyard, you change the psychological impact of the scene--and the book. The entire page 667(US) should have been rewritten in the second edition to keep Harry thinking of his father but with the correct wand order.

When I realized the second edition had changed this, I went out and bought a couple copies of the first version, so my kids can eventually read it the way I think it should be.

guest - May 23, 2003 4:20 am (#195 of 225)
Sorry...another map question/problem: Since Harry saw Crouch's name on the map when "Moody" was searching Snape's office, wouldn't he have seen Crouch's name representing "Moody" on the map throughout the year? Also, wouldn't the real Moody have shown up on the map as being stationary the entire time while he was being hidden in the trunk?

Saralinda - May 23, 2003 5:08 am (#196 of 225)
Harry apparently didn't need the map as much this time around, at least at the beginning of the year, since he already had permission to go for Hogsmeade visits. The real Moody probably showed on the map as in his office and motionless, but he could have been sitting at his desk for all Harry knew. I've always presumed that the reason Crouch/Moody nabbed the Map with a mad roll of his eye was that he saw himself on it as "Crouch" and was half an inch from freaking out.

There's never been any indication (that I noticed, anyway) that Harry ever used the map for anything other than scoping out specific areas where he planned to go and making sure no unwelcome authority figures were in the vicinity.

Ticker - May 23, 2003 5:39 am (#197 of 225)
Edited by May 23, 2003 6:40 am
I agree, Saralinda. Harry didn't even know to look for Crouch until he appeared on the map near his path back to the dormitory - but then, Snape's office isn't exactly on the way, is it? Harry's main concern in using the map was getting places un-noticed, not in school observation. Harry was probably looking to see if Snape & Filch were safely out of his way and Crouch caught his eye. When he saw 1 unexpected person, he didn't think of using the map to observe him. He went in person to observe.

Harry wasn't as concerned about running into "Moody". He probably wasn't looking for him. If he had, he would have seen him in his office & figured he was out of his way. But then, "Moody" is attracted to crisis, and has some amazing magical tools, so Harry didn't see the inconsistancy of his presence there, which sets up the revelation at the end of the book so nicely.

I don't think this one is an error or inconsistancy.

Pinky - May 23, 2003 5:52 am (#198 of 225)
I've thought maybe it was because Crouch was himself when he was raiding Snape's office. I'm thinking that was the only time he did it, because Snape would have set stronger wards when he realized someone had broken in. Crouch had to steal boomslang skin (I think) to keep making his polyjuice potion. He must have gone through a LOT of that potion, since he had to drink it every hour. I wonder if he drank it all night long, waking up every hour? Or maybe he just let himself turn back into Crouch while he slept, and then drank potion first thing in the morning. Maybe he was getting desperate to get more ingredients because he was running out. Finally, he raided Snape's office to get stuff as a last resort - and he had already run out of potion by then, so he had to do it as Crouch. When he saw the map, he knew that that situation might arise again, or that he would be seen as Crouch while he slept. OR, he was worried that Harry might see 2 Moody's on there sometime.

All this is based on the supposition that the Maurader's Map could be fooled by Polyjuice Potion and would label Crouch as Moody as long as he was "in character."

Madam Poppy - May 23, 2003 6:44 am (#199 of 225)
I agree with you 90% Pinky. I think that Crouch Jr. had to go into Snape's office as Moody. He showed up for the confrontation on the stairway shortly after Harry had seen him on the Map. The initial transformation from Crouch Jr. to Moody must take some time and effort. The magical eye and artificial leg would be difficult to carry around. So this would mean the Map shows who you really are?

It sounds like this was the first time Crouch Jr. broke into Snape's office. Did he bring bottles of Polyjuice in his truck and had finally run out? He could have ordered the supplies and tried to brew it in his office. But then, the smell would have given him away.

I wonder if Harry will get his Map back? JKR may not return it to him because of all the problems it can cause.

Ticker - May 23, 2003 6:56 am (#200 of 225)
Hmmmm... I hadn't thought of polyjuice potion being able to fool the map - but a very good point, Pinky. I never thought about whether Crouch would risk going about the school undisguised as you suggest.

If he was out of the potion, and HAD to sneak down as Crouch to get more ingredients - he'd be hosed because it takes so long to prepare, he'd be caught for sure. He must have had at least a month's supply.

But if he was just getting supplies for next month, it would certainly be easier to sneak around as Crouch than Moody. He'd have to always carry Moody's leg & eye wherever he went, which might be a bit awkward, but he'd still have all his body parts to do it with. And we would expect him to only sleep behind seriously locked doors so nobody could walk in on him. That would conserve the potion too.

Good point - bravo!

Ticker - May 23, 2003 7:04 am (#201 of 225)
Edited by May 23, 2003 8:04 am
Madam Poppy - you posted while I was composing & look I got post 200 (& 201)!

I think Crouch could have brewed the polyjuice potion in the middle of his room & no one would have thought it strange. More likely, he would have brewed it in the trunk he put everything else in.

I wonder who will possess the map next year as well. I'd like to see Harry get it back, but then I'd probably be frustrated at how little use he puts it to. Well, who knows? I'll wait & see.

shepherdess - May 23, 2003 7:52 am (#202 of 225)
Pinky, Your theory was as fine as most others posted on this forum. I think maybe your name no longer fits.

Saralinda - May 23, 2003 8:28 am (#203 of 225)
If the Map can't be fooled by an animagus, then Polyjuice probably can't bamboozle it, either. I'm confident that Crouch Jr. was in Moody-mode when he ransacked Snape's office.

timrew - May 23, 2003 8:51 am (#204 of 225)
Edited by May 23, 2003 9:52 am
Here's a puzzler. Now I assume polyjuice works by accessing the DNA of the hair or toenails (or whatever) of the person you want to change into. And then it 'grows' that DNA until it becomes the whole person.

Now, in a DNA sample, there is every single bit of information needed to 'grow' a person - a complete person.

So even if that person had, say, lost an eye, or a leg, or was horribly scarred, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the DNA. So, when Crouch became Mad Eye Moody, wouldn't that Moody have been unscarred and in possession of two eyes and two legs?

Pinky - May 23, 2003 8:51 am (#205 of 225)
Awww, shepherdess, I'm having a stressful time and you just made my day. Thanks! (Although I think that might have been Brain that logged in using Pinky's name.) ;-)

Good point yourself, Ticker. Maybe all he had to do was throw the last ingredient in? Instead of making a whole new batch? I can't remember how Hermione did it - and the boards may even be down by the time I post this. You know you're a Lexicon fan when.... you're desperately posting as they go down!

Sly Girl - May 26, 2003 4:24 pm (#206 of 225)
Edited by May 26, 2003 5:25 pm
As for the map, I read a fan fic that had the map residing with Snape of all people, which was weird to say the least. I'm guessing JKR will still let Harry use the map. She probably doesn't realize we're all sitting around trying to figure out how it really works...or if she does, she prolly things we're mental. lol Very Happy

Meg L. - May 26, 2003 6:33 pm (#207 of 225)
I don't agree with the DNA idea, Scrambledeggs, sorry. I think the only way for polyuice potion to work is if the person you turn inot looks exactly like the person does at that time - how would you account for haircuts and things like that?

Saralinda - May 27, 2003 7:32 pm (#208 of 225)
Not to mention the person's chronological age -- which isn't a function of DNA.

Cliff Hamaker - May 29, 2003 6:45 pm (#209 of 225)
Actually, Saralinda.... I have seen things on TV, I think it was NOVA or something on the Discovery Channel, and there was something about age being connected to telomeres which are a part of DNA. As in, they degenerate or go away with old age. I can't remember everything they said, but there may be a connection between age and DNA.

And I have to agree with Meg. I do'nt think DNA is the answer.

{Meg, when will the hamster be free?! }

Saralinda - May 29, 2003 6:47 pm (#210 of 225)
I thought that was the *way* in which one ages, or the rate. You can tell the age of a person from his/her DNA?

Cliff Hamaker - May 29, 2003 6:51 pm (#211 of 225)
I have *no* idea. I daw that show a few years ago... All I remember is that there is a connection between the two. What that connection is... I have no recollection.

Asktqa - May 31, 2003 11:40 am (#212 of 225)
Edited by May 31, 2003 12:42 pm
Well, apparently, telomeres are repeating sequences of genetic material on the ends of chromosomes (chromosomes are made up of DNA, they carry all your genetic material) Every time a cell in your body reproduces, the telomeres get shorter. They don't carry any coding for characteristics and act as a 'frame' for the rest of the genetic material so none of it is lost during cell reproduction. Normal cells only divide a certain amount of times before they die, and scientists aren't sure whether the shorter telomeres cause the cell to age and die. They also don't know if telomere loss is directly related to whether humans age and die.

(I paraphrased all that from the 'author's note' explaining all the science behind this book I read called Turnabout, by the way. I don't actually know all that by heart!)

As far as I can see, if you did have the full genetic code for a person you'd also know the length of their telomeres, but it isn't clear if length of telomeres directly relates to age of person. Apparently the cells of some of our most important organs stop dividing quite early on so wouldn't age in this way.

I still like the idea it's done though genetics, simply because taking a sample of hair from a person makes me think of genetics, getting their DNA, etc.

Saralinda - May 31, 2003 6:09 pm (#213 of 225)
But their haircuts??? Dental work???

I'd prefer for the Polyjuice to take a "photo" of the person and reproduce it. Of course, by that definition, Moody would have become feebler and feebler as the year progressed, so I just shot my own theory down. Darn, I hate it when that happens.

No really satisfactory answer here.

timrew - Jun 1, 2003 5:52 am (#214 of 225)
Okay, I only put in the DNA thing to promote a discussion! Smile

It all came about when my son told me about the latest Star Wars Movie, "Send In The Clones", or whatever it was called. And apparently they clone this bad guy who has a scar on his face into a whole army - and, guess what? The whole army of clones have scars on their faces.

Now, this would never happen, and that's why I thought of it in the polyjuice context. I mean, Polyjuice has probably got nothing to do with DNA - maybe it's just magic! Smile

Sly Girl - Jun 1, 2003 10:30 pm (#215 of 225)
Yeah, I don't think Cloning and Polyjuice are the same thing.

And that's my answer too.. "Uh oh.. it's magic!"

Madam Poppy - Jun 12, 2003 9:01 pm (#216 of 225)
Edited Jun 12, 2003 10:02 pm
Regarding Professor Moody and practicing the Imperius Curse with Harry's class. GofF Chap. 15 "Moody cleared away the desks with a sweep of his wand, leaving a large clear space in the middle of the room." Later "Harry moved forward into the middle of the classroom, into the space that Moody had cleared of desks." "And then he heard Mad-Eye Moody's voice, echoing in some distant chamber of his empty brain: Jump onto the desk...jump onto the desk..."

What desk? Aren't they are all cleared away? I'm thinking that JKR just forgot to say, "Harry jumped onto one of the school desks at the edge of the room", or something like that.

Meg L. - Jun 13, 2003 3:10 am (#217 of 225)
I figured that since Harry went towards the front of the room that Moody was telling him to jump onto the teacher's desk at the front of the class.

Madam Poppy - Jun 13, 2003 9:44 am (#218 of 225)
Edited Jun 13, 2003 10:45 am
It's just one of those things you catch on your umpteenth time through your audio tapes! Thanks...makes sense to me, tho the writer could have made it a little clearer.

Surtseystwin - Jun 14, 2003 10:16 am (#219 of 225)
I have read only this thread, so if this has already been discussed into the ground, please forgive me.

I still think there is a huge problem with the Priori Incantatem. There would not be any sense in Peter using Voldemort's wand to kill Cedric, then putting it away, and using another, but let's explore that possiblity.

Peter last used his own wand 13 years prior during his confrontation with Black. Since he disappeared into the sewers as a rat at that time, and had remained a rat for many years afterward, his wand must have been lost, or confiscated by the ministry of magic. Although he was foolish enough to risk being seen when stopping for food, it is not likely he would have risked purchasing a new wand after leaving Hogwarts in PoA. Crouch Sr. could have been forced to return a confiscated wand under the Imperius Curse, but forcing Crouch to do anything suspicious would have been imprudent. If he were caught, Voldemort's whole plan would be in jeopardy. Crouch could have also been forced to purchase a new wand for Peter, but since "the wand chooses the wizard," this would also not have been practical. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume that Peter used Voldemort's wand for all his business at Tom Riddle's grave.

If that is the case, then after Pettigrew's new hand, and before the shade of Diggory, the Priori Incantatem should have also produced a shade of the spell that threw Peter against the headstone, the spell that summoned Tom Riddle Sr.'s dust, that which lit the fire under the cauldron, conjured the ropes around Harry, and illuminated the area.

The shade of Peter's new hand demonstates that the Priori Incantatem does not produce only malevolent, murderous, or verbally spoken spells. Cedric's shade, and in my opinion, Bertha's, show that the effect is not limited only to spells performed by the wand's owner.

I can accept the "only completed spells" theory for the missing Avada Kedavra. But these other missing spells have no explaination, and I think qualify as a mistake.

Olivia Wood - Jun 17, 2003 8:17 pm (#220 of 225)
Edited Jun 17, 2003 9:19 pm
How do you know the nature of the spell that produced Pettigrew's hand? Knowing Voldie, it probably is malevolent in some way. I mean, what's the point of giving the guy a shiny silver hand if its not in some way Evil, and can be used by Voldie to further his Evil plans. ... Possibly the hand is alive in some strange way. That would explain why the cruciatus curse wasn't represented either... or maybe only the representations of spells that caused a more permanent change and can be represented by a tangible form have shadows. ... There are too many possible explanations for us to write it off as a mistake. ... I think the lot of us would make great historians. Smile

Anyway, I was rereading CoS in preparation for OOP, the 'Flourish and Blotts' chapter, and realized Harry never bought his books for that year. He picked up a copy of the Standard Book of Spells, Grade 2, (never paying for it) and got in line with Mrs. Weasley. Then Lockhart spotted him and he was given a set of Lockhart books free of charge, but he gave those to Ginny, saying he would buy his own, but before he had a chance to Mr. Weasley got in that fight with Lucius Malfoy and they left right afterwards. Ron and Hermione were mentioned to be carrying stacks of their own Lockhart books, but Harry never bought his. Unless somebody can explain it otherwise, I think this is a mistake.

Ashe - Jun 18, 2003 3:21 pm (#221 of 225)
Forgive me if I'm restating something someone said, but this thread has 220 posts, and I've not the patience to weed through them all at the moment.

I've thought of two plotholes in the books.

1) Book 2:

When Harry, Ron, and Hermione are heading back towards the castle, they hear Buckbeak get his head chopped off. They shouldn't. If Harry can see something that his future self has done during the present (IE: The patronus against the dementors), then they shouldn't hear Buckbeak get his head cut off, because Hermione and Harry have already freed him. It goes in circles, but it makes sense. Think about it. For the trio to hear Buckbeak have his head cut off, Harry and Hermione would've also had to have been sucked dry by the dementors. But, Harry stopped the dementors from taking their souls by conjuring his patronus. Wouldn't they also have affected the present of the trio walking back to the castle since they went to the past and saved Buckbeak? It doesn't make sense for one to affect the present and the other not to. Though, it could be that MacNair just swung his axe at something, but I don't remember him doing so.

2) Book 4:

When Harry goes into the mist that turns him upside down, his glasses start falling off. However, his robes and shirt don't fall up over his head. I can understand his shirt not moving, if he had his arms clamped down over it, but unless he was holding his robes against his ankles, they would've ridden up and covered his head.

john smithqwert - Jun 18, 2003 3:28 pm (#222 of 225)

As Harry, Ron, and Hermione head back to the castle they think that they hear Macnair decapitating Buckbeak; however, when Harry and Hermione later travel back in time, they discover that he had only swung the axe into the fence.

NoVeil4Me - Jun 18, 2003 4:40 pm (#223 of 225)
Ashe, you don't have to read through all the posts to see if something has been discussed. Use the handy, dandy Search feature, provided at no extra cost to Forum members, to look for it.

Meg L. - Jun 19, 2003 4:55 am (#224 of 225)
i've thought about the fact that his glasses start to fall off, but I wonder if maybe he thought they were falling because he was so totally convinced that he was upside-down? I've done that before, where I was thinking that something was about to fall, and when I tried to catch it, my movements actually make it fall first. Know what I mean?

Surtseystwin - Jun 20, 2003 2:08 pm (#225 of 225)
Olivia Wood wrote:

Possibly the hand is alive in some strange way. That would explain why the cruciatus curse wasn't represented either... or maybe only the representations of spells that caused a more permanent change and can be represented by a tangible form have shadows <

Unless there is a difference between the Priori Incantatem *spell* (as performed on Harry's wand, producing a shade of the dark mark) and the reverse spell *effect* when a wand does battle with its brother, that can't explain it either.

I don't think you could really call this a mistake, but it bugs me: It would be pretty impossible to "accidentally" step on the tail of a bulldog (PoA2), in fact it would be very difficult even to do it on purpose!
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 1440
Join date : 2011-02-19
Age : 49
Location : France

Back to top Go down

How many "Hard and Fast" errors are there? (adapted) Condensed Thread Empty Re: How many "Hard and Fast" errors are there? (adapted) Condensed Thread

Post  Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum