Spring Break
Harry Potter plot-holes
Lauren Davidson/Columnist
Issue date: 2/19/08 Section: Opinions
In my 20th year of life, I find that there are very few things that I can rely on as being constant. However, despite my ripe adulthood, I find that my devotion to a series of children's novels has yet to waiver. Yes, I am of course referring to the best young adult literature ever written: the Harry Potter series.
However, no piece of writing is perfect, and I thought I'd take some time to talk about some of the plot problems I find with the work.
In the fourth book, after seeing Diggory die, Harry is taken from Hogwarts to the station at local Wizarding town, Hogsmeade, by carriages drawn by creatures he cannot see. We learn at the beginning of the next book that they are called "thestrals," or bony versions of horses that can only be seen by people who have witnessed death.
So why the lag? Why couldn't Harry see them the first time he was around them after a death? And for that matter, shouldn't he have been able to see them the first time, as he witnessed his mother's death as a baby? Or wouldn't most of the wizarding kids at least be aware of such an animal?
And in the fifth book, Harry doesn't use Sirius' two-way mirror for contact. Sirius tells him straight-out to use it whenever he wants to talk, but instead Harry spends half the book trying to come up with ways to reach his Godfather. Very weird.
On a similar note, why doesn't Harry simply find a painting of Dumbledore to communicate with him in the seventh book? I read an interview with Rowling at Carnegie Hall this past summer, and the biggest reason it was done was "it really would be too easy and [we] wouldn't have had a plot."
Fans might remember this interview as being the same one that finally cleared up yet another plot-hole: the issue of Dumbledore's (lack of a) love life. In reading over the script for the sixth movie, Rowling actually had to scribble in the margins of a scene where Dumbledore had lines in which he reminisced about a former (female) love. Rowling's comment to the director? "Dumbledore's gay!"
It has always bugged me that Harry and his friends didn't have cell phones when they were constantly in situations that could be helped by them.
However, I can hardly blame Rowling for wanting to keep the plot more interesting and create more difficulties for the characters.
Plus, you finally learn in the seventh book that Harry was born in 1980, so the books are supposed to be taking place in the early-to-mid 90s.
I guess in 1997 there were still some people who didn't have cell phones, but I maintain that it seems well within the reach of wizarding technology. She really ought to have considered setting the book even further in the past to avoid certain technological expectations.
In a fictional universe as detailed as Rowling's, it would be almost impossible not to run into indescrepancies after seven books. I maintain that despite these plot-holes (and there are many more), the books are still brilliant works that we'll be reading and dissecting for years to come. Or maybe that's just me.
Lauren Davidson is a junior English major. She can be reached at 581-7942 or at DENopinions@gmail.com.
However, no piece of writing is perfect, and I thought I'd take some time to talk about some of the plot problems I find with the work.
In the fourth book, after seeing Diggory die, Harry is taken from Hogwarts to the station at local Wizarding town, Hogsmeade, by carriages drawn by creatures he cannot see. We learn at the beginning of the next book that they are called "thestrals," or bony versions of horses that can only be seen by people who have witnessed death.
So why the lag? Why couldn't Harry see them the first time he was around them after a death? And for that matter, shouldn't he have been able to see them the first time, as he witnessed his mother's death as a baby? Or wouldn't most of the wizarding kids at least be aware of such an animal?
And in the fifth book, Harry doesn't use Sirius' two-way mirror for contact. Sirius tells him straight-out to use it whenever he wants to talk, but instead Harry spends half the book trying to come up with ways to reach his Godfather. Very weird.
On a similar note, why doesn't Harry simply find a painting of Dumbledore to communicate with him in the seventh book? I read an interview with Rowling at Carnegie Hall this past summer, and the biggest reason it was done was "it really would be too easy and [we] wouldn't have had a plot."
Fans might remember this interview as being the same one that finally cleared up yet another plot-hole: the issue of Dumbledore's (lack of a) love life. In reading over the script for the sixth movie, Rowling actually had to scribble in the margins of a scene where Dumbledore had lines in which he reminisced about a former (female) love. Rowling's comment to the director? "Dumbledore's gay!"
It has always bugged me that Harry and his friends didn't have cell phones when they were constantly in situations that could be helped by them.
However, I can hardly blame Rowling for wanting to keep the plot more interesting and create more difficulties for the characters.
Plus, you finally learn in the seventh book that Harry was born in 1980, so the books are supposed to be taking place in the early-to-mid 90s.
I guess in 1997 there were still some people who didn't have cell phones, but I maintain that it seems well within the reach of wizarding technology. She really ought to have considered setting the book even further in the past to avoid certain technological expectations.
In a fictional universe as detailed as Rowling's, it would be almost impossible not to run into indescrepancies after seven books. I maintain that despite these plot-holes (and there are many more), the books are still brilliant works that we'll be reading and dissecting for years to come. Or maybe that's just me.
Lauren Davidson is a junior English major. She can be reached at 581-7942 or at DENopinions@gmail.com.
The Daily Eastern News encourages on-topic, civil discussion on its articles posted online. It is our policy not to screen comments before they are posted or edit them after they are posted. However, we reserve the right to remove comments that are off-topic, malicious, libelous or include excessive foul language. The DEN also reserves the right to turn off all comments on any story it deems necessary.
Comments violating copyright law will also be removed.
Users who repeatedly violate this policy will be banned from commenting.
If you have any questions on our comment policy or wish to report a comment that you feel violates these standards, please e-mail a link to the article to our Online Editor at DENNews.com@gmail.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 14
93
posted 2/19/08 @ 2:07 AM CST
Picard is better than Kirk!
Kyle
posted 2/19/08 @ 3:12 AM CST
There are far worse plot holes in the books than the ones you mentioned, but I'll out myself even further as a nerd.
Thestrals can only be seen after you see death and it sinks in. (Continued…)
born in '79
posted 2/19/08 @ 7:47 AM CST
Since I am the same age as Harry Potter, I can speak to the cell phone issue. Nobody had cell phones while I was in High School. Some people had pagers, but cell phone plans were still too expensive at that point. (Continued…)
Why?
posted 2/19/08 @ 5:01 PM CST
i must admitt that this is the worst article to grace the den yet, and that really says a lot. What is the point....that you say there are problems with the books, but you still like them. (Continued…)
Heather
posted 2/20/08 @ 9:57 AM CST
This opinion piece seems oddly untimely and out of place. There has been little mention of Harry Potter in the media, let alone regarding books four and five--especially since movie 6 will be coming out later this year, and book seven graced the shelves more than half a year ago!
Laura Griffith
posted 2/20/08 @ 3:36 PM CST
Yeah, it's true -- this piece is a bit untimely and would have worked better coinciding with a book or movie release. However, I must admit that this headline listed under the "most commented" section drew my attention immediately (I'm a Potter nerd also. (Continued…)
ryan
posted 5/10/08 @ 8:37 AM CST
I think it was a good review, i don't see why people are complaining that it doesn't coincide with a movie or book release...what has that got to with it??? besides the site is about plot-holes and that's just what we got, i've seen other sites where they come up with spelling mistakes as plot holes!
as far as i'm concerned this was a good effort
Stan
posted 7/17/08 @ 4:22 PM CST
Cell Phones: The Harry Potter books take place 10 years ago 1991-1998, and High School students didn't carry around cell phones back then.
Europe might have had wide use of cell phones sooner - they've caught on to technological networks faster than the US has, but still, wizarding families don't seem to be part of the rest of the world, particularly the pure-bloods with money wouldn't have been interested in muggle technology. (Continued…)
Allyson
posted 1/11/09 @ 4:50 PM CST
for those people who don't pay attention to details in books you would know that in the fourth book it is stated that muggle electronics like cellphones do not work in the wizarding world. (Continued…)
Chriso
posted 3/26/09 @ 12:55 PM CST
hello!
book three: F-ing time travel. "About three turns would do it," how about 25, 50, 0r 100? Put Scabers in a cage, take him to the ministry of magic. (Continued…)
Post a Comment