SPOILER WARNING: A thread about the Harry Potter books

[Edena_of_Neith]

Dumbledore is not all knowing or all clever, by any means. He has made terrible, drastic mistakes. Some of his mistakes are caused by his ethical stance, such as allowing Tom Riddle to enter Hogwarts.
He did not figure out Voldemort could return through Quirrel. Harry, Hermione, and Ron beat him to it.
He did not figure out the Chamber of Secrets situation.
He could not save Sirius Black or Buckbeak. Harry and Hermione had to do that.
He did not figure out the Tri-Wizards Cup was a portkey trap, or that Wormtail had infiltrated his school.
In the end, Draco Malfoy outwitted Dumbledore. He found a way through all the defenses set up by Dumbledore (and all the others) through the items and the Room of Requirement ((not bad, Draco ...))

Incidentally, Rowlings says (according to the website I visited) that McGonagall is an old softy. I must disagree with her. Heh. LOL.

I like Fleur (I like Hermione even more, but Fleur is second ... and Ginny third.) Now, if only Ron Weasley had been 5 years older, perhaps he could have won her ...

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

Edena,
Well, Dumbledore does say that he is much cleverer than most folks, but that being so also means that his mistakes are correspondingly larger. Of couse, since we only see things through the Harry-filter, there's often a lot more going on in regards to Dumbledore that we don't see. But I agree that he's far from all-knowing, and he admits so himself, which I think is a large part of his charm.

As for Riddle, Dumbledore always believes in giving people a second chance, believing in the inherent goodness of others.

For a lot of the other cases, he didn't have all the necessary tools/information needed to do the job, as it were. For Quirrel, it was only at the dramatic confrontation that Harry learned who the guilty party was; throughout the book he was adamant it was Snape. Albus knew that Voldemort was lurking around, trying to get the Stone, but I'm sure that Vapermort took steps to hide his presence right under his enemy's nose.

Portkey trap? It was set up by an imposter that was doing a wonderful job of impersonating on of Dumbledore's trusted allies that Dumbledore himself was fooled. Hard to prevent a plot when the person most trusted to thwart it is the instigator, and especially if as the movie showed Dumbledore asked "Moody" to keep an eye on Potter.

Of course, there's also the conceit that stories about Harry Potter would be a great deal less interesting if Dumbledore was able to solve the case in the matter of a few pages.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I'm not saying Dumbledore is stupid, merely that he makes mistakes.
One of his greatest mistakes was sending Harry to live with the Dursleys. A point Dumbledore basically admitted to ... to the Dursleys themselves.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not saying Dumbledore is stupid, merely that he makes mistakes.
One of his greatest mistakes was sending Harry to live with the Dursleys. A point Dumbledore basically admitted to ... to the Dursleys themselves.

Which was, really, the only way that JKR could ret-con the Dursleys into making sense.

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

Yeah, sending Harry to the Dursleys was a mistake in terms of Harry's growing up, but when he did it, Dumbledore's #1 priority was "Keep Harry Safe/Alive," which required sending him to his only living relative, Petunia Dursley. Sadly, his hopes that they would give Harry a happy childhood were woefully misplaced.

And I really don't think it was ret-con, more that it wasn't until the end of Book 5 that we finally learned why he had to keep going back.

Think what you will, but I honestly believe that Rowling's had the major plot-points planned out from the beginning, especially regarding Harry. There's been far too many subtle nods in earlier books to things that become major in later stories for it to be coincidental. She sneaks in something that looks minor, like Animagi (McGonagall in the opening of Philosopher's Stone) or Divination (making it look like a load of bunk) that prove to be crucial elements of the plot of a later book, such as the Marauders in PoA or the Prophecy in OotP.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Think what you will, but I honestly believe that Rowling's had the major plot-points planned out from the beginning, especially regarding Harry. There's been far too many subtle nods in earlier books to things that become major in later stories for it to be coincidental.

Sorta like Enterprise had been planned out when the original Star Trek series was conceived? There are far too many subtle nods in Star Trek to things that become major in Enterprise for it to be coincidental......

Sorry, but I don't buy it. I don't think there was a real sense of where the series was going until #3 at the earliest.


RC

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

On another issue, I think McGonagall should have accepted Neville into her class (changing forms, changing things) after he only attained an Acceptable on his O.W.L.
The reason?
Neville played a part in saving the school, especially in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Is that playing favorites? Yes. Is it unfair? Yes.
Should Neville receive special treatment for aiding Hogwarts? Yes, IMHO.

As for Harry Potter, he should have been accepted into any NEWT class he wished into, period. Ditto Hermione and Ron Weasley. Without them, there would have been no Hogwarts to teach NEWT classes in.

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

Sorta like Enterprise had been planned out when the original Star Trek series was conceived? There are far too many subtle nods in Star Trek to things that become major in Enterprise for it to be coincidental......

RC

You're comparing apples and chainsaws with that (incredibly pathetic) attempt.

I'm guessing any point in any series, if they go explain in any detail about things from the past, either past stories or things prior to when the stories take place, you call it a ret-con?

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

On another issue, I think McGonagall should have accepted Neville into her class (changing forms, changing things) after he only attained an Acceptable on his O.W.L.
The reason?
Neville played a part in saving the school, especially in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Is that playing favorites? Yes. Is it unfair? Yes.
Should Neville receive special treatment for aiding Hogwarts? Yes, IMHO.

As for Harry Potter, he should have been accepted into any NEWT class he wished into, period. Ditto Hermione and Ron Weasley. Without them, there would have been no Hogwarts to teach NEWT classes in.

The problem there is it would require McGonagall to show blatantly undue favoritism, something she's never done and would be horribly out of character for her. She has allowed a slight bending of the rules where appropriate (Hermoine and the Time Turner, advising Harry when it came to dealing with Umbridge), but for the most part she's a "by the book" type of teacher.

She's done a fair amount to hold Harry to the same rules as any other student, and if anyone should get special treatment for past deeds, it's him. But other than not being expelled for flying during his first year (he got on to the Quidditch team based on skill, not favoritism), Harry's had to toe the same academic line as everyone else.

As for Neville, after having spent the past five years teaching the boy, she'd have a pretty good idea whether he could keep up with the course work. It's not that much different than Honors classes in real world schools; you only get in if you've got the academic track record to show you can keep up. And frankly, Neville's been pretty lackluster through most of his academic life, only excelling in Herbology and probably scraping by in his other classes (save for Potions, which he's abysmal at due to Snape).

 

[Raven Crowking]

You're comparing apples and chainsaws with that (incredibly pathetic) attempt.

I'm guessing any point in any series, if they go explain in any detail about things from the past, either past stories or things prior to when the stories take place, you call it a ret-con?

Absolutely not. There are many writers who clearly do know the story they are telling from word one, and those writers are not making laboured attempts to make previous details make sense.

There are some obvious, and big, examples. Why is Harry protected from Voldemort? Because his mother loved him and was willing to die for him. Hmmmm. And, when the Death Eaters were active, Harry was the only child so loved by his parents? Seems more like an explaination that left Harry vulnerable was needed, but certainly not a good one. (I believe I mentioned that before.)

Why is Harry sent to the Dursleys? At this point, let it be remembered, He Who Must Not Be Named is dead. Sure, he has servants, but they are being rounded up. So the most powerful wizards in Britain decide that, rather than protect Harry themselves, they'll stick him in bondage with the most abusive family they can find. Of course, they watch over him, so they know the family is abusive, right?

Or, perhaps, in the first book they simply left Harry with the Dursleys because they were his closest living relatives, and all the rest is ret-con.

Which makes more sense?

And why exactly is it that neither Voldemort nor any Death Eater knows that a parent's love can protect a child? Oh, yes, they are "blind to it"....but surely the most willfully blind must have run into this effect before?

And why exactly is it that none of the other wizards seems to know about this effect either? After all, when it comes down to it, Harry's survival shouldn't have been that miraculous. (Unless, of course, it was determined that the survival was a miracle before it was determined how the survival occured.)

Frankly, the books are fun, light reads....but they do not stand up under even the mildest scrutiny. Hence, my belief that they are ret-conned.


RC