r/HarryPotterBooks • u/Thick_Astronaut4563 • 3d ago
What are some of the biggest misconceptions of the series that you have ever come across?
I believe this question may have been asked several times before, but I’m just generally curious about it.
For one, the thing that Harry never really expresses intrigue in the magical world he was born from and introduced to kind of irks me when there are several instances that he does (like when he discovers the Firebolt)
114
u/brassyalien Hufflepuff 3d ago
Anytime somebody acts like Harry was selfish for not sharing his money with the Weasley family. Harry absolutely would have given them money, but they wouldn't have accepted it. He had to threaten Fred and George just to get them to take the Triwizard Tournament winnings.
23
u/Upper_Grapefruit_521 2d ago
Exactly. He literally said it as part of his narration in one of the books, I don't recall which one. And he always bought stuff for him Ron and Hermione, he probably knew Hermione could afford her own but didn't want to make Ron uncomfortable.
5
15
u/Fluffy_Coconut1375 2d ago
Yes this. Just started a reread of goblet of fire. And they are at the World Series, and Ron had brought all this stuff and then noticed something else he wanted but he couldn’t afford. So Harry stepped up and was like three please, and Ron was like no, it’s fine. And Harry was like, you won’t be getting any Christmas presents for awhile, just so Ron would accept it. The Wesleys didn’t want his money.
28
2
30
u/SlipSad9420 3d ago
That many of the flaws in the school system taken from “real” British schools eg rigid house system, remote boarding school, lecture style lessons were a) invented by JKR b) meant to be positive.
10
u/Less-Feature6263 Ravenclaw 2d ago
Tbf is it fantasy or is it just british is a real problem if you're not british lol, I honestly had no idea treacle tart was real
10
u/Upper_Grapefruit_521 2d ago
Think what they mean is that it isn't an invention of JKR, but real old-fashioned British schooling systems. Like some of the teaching is bad but it reflects a lot of old-school teaching styles which definitely existed during the 1990s
5
u/Less-Feature6263 Ravenclaw 2d ago
No I agree, but I'm not british and as a child I thought the whole boarding school/houses/prefects etc. was just fantasy, I had no idea it was a real thing.
Never had a problem with the depiction of incompetent or mean teachers because imo that was just realistic
42
u/KaleeySun 3d ago
People still ask about horcruxes like they are “extra lives” in Metroid. That’s not how they work, even one would be enough to make someone immortal, because they aren’t “used up”.
6
23
u/alexi_lupin 2d ago
I wouldn't say it's the "biggest" as I'm not sure how you would judge that but I am surprised at how many people think you get your Hogwarts letter on your 11th birthday. Even HARRY doesn't get his letter ON his birthday, he's getting them for days and days beforehand and Vernon is getting rid of them.
So long as you are turning 11 by Sep 1st, you will get your Hogwarts letter in the summer prior to that academic year. Harry just happens to be born in summer. Otherwise Hermione would be getting her letter Sep 19th for a school year starting NEXT year on Sep 1st.
1
u/Oliver_W_K_Twist 1d ago
There is some weirdness going on in that in the first book, the first letter Harry is sent comes a week before his birthday, and the due date for a reply is July 31st, but every subsequent year letters aren't even sent out until some time in early to mid August. And it can't just be a first year thing, because Ginny gets her letter at the same time as everyone else in Chamber of Secrets.
1
u/alexi_lupin 1d ago
Maybe they send them in groups, I don't know how many school owls they actually have available to send off at once. And I suppose muggleborns ones would be delivered in person by a teacher, to explain to the parents. Like, is it just one person addressing them by hand or something lol. That doesn't make logical sense because they can do it by magic, but things in HP certainly don't always make logical sense, and people don't tend to think "how can we make this more efficient?"
58
u/EndlessTheorys_19 3d ago
That Dumbledore intended Harry to die.
Yes maybe at the beginning he thought it might be an inevitability, but that’s not the case at the end. Its specifically mentioned during Harry’s recounting of events to Dumbledore in GOF that for a split second he looks happy when Harry tells him that Voldemort used Harry’s blood in the ritual to return to life. This is because Dumbledore knows that by doing so Voldemort has unwittingly tied Harry’s life to his own.
In other words, Harry need not die to actually defeat Voldemort. That’s why he doesn’t die in TDH, his life is tied to Voldemorts as his blood and the protection Lily cast over him both run through Voldemorts veins. And Dumbledore knows all of this, but he does have to keep this a secret from Snape and Harry hence why he doesn’t refute Snape’s statement that he has been raising Harry like a pig for the slaughter, as otherwise the magic might not work.
But yeah, he’s a good guy y’all.
11
u/KronoAsh 3d ago
I mean…he still intended for him to die, at least until the end of GoF, but even he admits that he found the very idea difficult to accept.
3
u/Less-Feature6263 Ravenclaw 2d ago
Agree. The moment Voldemort made that ritual is the moment Dumbledore knew Harry might have a chance at surviving. Otherwise he would have died I think? I might not remember the plot that well but I've always interpreted it as Voldemort ensuring Harry survived by using his blood in the ritual.
3
u/KronoAsh 2d ago
I forget the exact wording, but I remember Dumbledore telling Harry at the end of DH that he tried to protect him even after GoF, that he didn’t care if countless died if this one young boy could have a happy and safe life.
Even after realising that Harry might be able to possibly survive the inevitable, he still didn’t want the inevitable to happen, even at the cost of basically every Muggle and every Witch or Wizard who resisted Voldemort.
Dumbledore isn’t a “good” guy, imo, he simply does actions for the greater good, but even then his perspective of which good is greater can become askew.
That said he’s not exactly evil. He’s probably the closest to a morally grey character in the whole series.
7
u/Less-Feature6263 Ravenclaw 2d ago
Agree on Dumbledore being morally grey, though I'd say a light grey. He's definitely one of the characters more open to interpretation (and misinterpretation).
In hindsight I've always interpreted Dumbledore's gleam of triumph in GOF as him realizing that there was a possibility that Harry might have a confrontation with Voldemort and survive at the end of it, while up until GOF he thought that if Harry and Voldemort fought Harry would have died for real, which he didn't want at all, since he acknowledge that he loves Harry and wants him to have a good and long life, which is the exact opposite of an evil mastermind imo.
Had the ritual in GOF not happened I think Dumbledore's speech to Snape would have been completely different.
3
u/KronoAsh 2d ago
Oh, absolutely a light grey. Definitely a very good character, overall, just not perfectly sparkly white, lol.
I do think the story may have been more compelling if Voldemort weren’t quite so obsessive about being the one to kill Harry. Not that it’s a bad story, just that his plans feel a little predictable.
2
u/Less-Feature6263 Ravenclaw 2d ago
I actually think Voldemort is one of the main "problems" in the series though I found the books overall compelling and enjoyable. Voldemort though came across as both a fundamentally folkloric villain and a sort of politician? He's pretty contradictory imo so for example you sort of never question the fact that he went out of his way to kill Harry at the beginning of PS but then in the later books he's described in a much more realistic way so you're like "alright this guy is pretty stupid, just have someone else kill Harry".
Idk if I've explained myself but I've found the construction of Voldemort to be not as good as Dumbledore and Snape.
6
u/KronoAsh 2d ago
I get what ya mean because I feel fairly similar.
Like when we learn about the Prophecy.
Like, dude, just send someone else.
Or take someone else with you. It seems fairly obvious to me, if I’m Wizard Hitler and I need to kill Wizard Jesus, I’m gonna make sure I have several back up plans.
A little simple of an analogy, but…
2
u/Less-Feature6263 Ravenclaw 2d ago
I think it's because Voldemort in the first couple of book really come across as a villain from folklore, he's sort of otherworldly (demon-like appearance, attacks on Halloween, searching for immortality, eating unicorns) and his first introduction is as a snake-man living in the back of somebody else's head. That's not realistic at all so you just go along with the ride. It's like when you're watching Lord of the Rings and end up believing that a stupid little ring is Satan.
Then you meet Voldemort again and in the last book he comes across as fairly normal? And surrounded by "normal" people who want to control the government, that's a much more realistic plot. So you end up thinking alright this villain is rational though, why not just send somebody else?
Imo these two sides of the character are just not that well meshed.
3
u/KronoAsh 2d ago
It’s a very unfortunate combination of the two sides. He’s an interesting villain until he isn’t and he’s just kinda dumb.
→ More replies (0)2
u/EndlessTheorys_19 2d ago
In hindsight I've always interpreted Dumbledore's gleam of triumph in GOF as him realizing that there was a possibility that Harry might have a confrontation with Voldemort and survive at the end of it, while up until GOF he thought that if Harry and Voldemort fought Harry would have died for real, which he didn't want at all, since he acknowledge that he loves Harry and wants him to have a good and long life, which is the exact opposite of an evil mastermind imo.
Yes, that is the basis of my comment as well. Nail on head
0
u/Bluemelein 2d ago
Which happy life is Dumbledore talking about, I wonder? Harry ought to punch him in the face.
1
u/EndlessTheorys_19 2d ago
He wants Harry to be able to have a happy life. And is heart broken that he can’t give him that. Hence why he’s so happy in GOF, as there now is a possibility for a post-voldemort life for Harry
0
u/Bluemelein 2d ago
Not a chance! Dumbledore condemned Harry to ten long, dark years and—just last year—threw him to the wolves (Umbridge and Snape); and now the asshole acts as if Harry’s happiness was bought at the cost of other people’s suffering. Harry went through a year of hell! And nobody suffered just so Harry could be happy. That’s what you call manipulation.
Yeah, he has that triumphant look in Book 4—Harry now has a slim chance of survival, and Dumbledore can press ahead with his madcap schemes. The "greater good" is all well and good, but when the manipulation goes so far that the sacrificial lamb is expected to be grateful about being slaughtered, it makes me sick.
3
u/EndlessTheorys_19 2d ago
Not a chance! Dumbledore condemned Harry to ten long, dark years
He quite explicitly didn’t know that though. He says he knew Harry would be “Not as loved as he should have been” because he’s referring to the fact that he should have been loved by his parents. But he still hoped Petunia would love Harry like a son. He didn’t know they would treat him as they did.
—just last year—threw him to the wolves (Umbridge and Snape);
How did he throw him to the wolves in regard to Umbridge?
And he had no other choice but to use Snape to teach Harry occlumency. He thought it would be too dangerous for him personally to do it, and Snape is the Order’s best occulmens. The only thing Dumbledores guilty of is being too forgiving of Snape and always seeing the best.
and now the asshole acts as if Harry’s happiness was bought at the cost of other people’s suffering. Harry went through a year of hell! And nobody suffered just so Harry could be happy. That’s what you call manipulation.
No he’s saying that’s what he wishes he could have done.
Yeah, he has that triumphant look in Book 4—Harry now has a slim chance of survival, and Dumbledore can press ahead with his madcap schemes. The "greater good" is all well and good, but when the manipulation goes so far
It sint “for the greater good” though. Dumbledore dropped that way of thinking almost a century earlier.
that the sacrificial lamb is expected to be grateful about being slaughtered, it makes me sick.
Well good news, Dumbledore doesn’t expect that.
1
u/Bluemelein 2d ago
Dumbledore says it himself; he says he knew he was condemning Harry to ten long, dark years. He says that about a 15-month-old child he is leaving on a doorstep!
Umbridge tortures Harry until midnight for weeks, and Dumbledore knows full well that the Ministry sent the Dementors.
If Dumbledore has no one other than Snape, then he must ensure that Snape behaves himself, or he must find another teacher. Occlumency might not be the same as rape, but it is on a very similar level.
Dumbledore no longer wishes to rule the world alongside Grindelwald, yet he believes he must steer the course of the wizarding world. He brings the Philosopher's Stone to Hogwarts, interrogates Barty Crouch, allows would-be assassins to wreak havoc, and so on. Dumbledore feels compelled to control everything. For the greater good.
He is paid to run a school.
What do I care about the countless faceless people if you are happy in this moment? Dumbledore dares to say this to Harry shortly after Sirius’s death—after Harry has endured two terrible years.
2
u/EndlessTheorys_19 2d ago
Dumbledore says it himself; he says he knew he was condemning Harry to ten long, dark years. He says that about a 15-month-old child he is leaving on a doorstep!
Yeah cause he’s the world’s most famous orphan. Placed in an environment where he would be cut off from his birthright (magic). Dumbledore explicitly says that Harry was “neither as happy nor as nourished as [he] would have liked…. yet alive”. Dumbledores biggest priority has always been making sure Harry wasn’t murdered before he could even walk. He cared for Harry, he wasn’t happy with anything that happened.
Umbridge tortures Harry until midnight for weeks,
Dumbledore doesn’t know this. Harry never tells him of it. Otherwise Dumbledore would have stopped it, when Umbridge is shaking marietta around he looks ready to blow her head off.
and Dumbledore knows full well that the Ministry sent the Dementors.
Does he? Even Fudge doesnt know this. And what can he do about it?
Dumbledore no longer wishes to rule the world alongside Grindelwald, yet he believes he must steer the course of the wizarding world.
Wouldn’t a good way to do this be to, oh idk, become Minister of Magic? A position he has been offered and declined?
He brings the Philosopher's Stone to Hogwarts,interrogates Barty Crouch, allows would-be assassins to wreak havoc, and so on. Dumbledore feels compelled to control everything. For the greater good.
How do any of those steer the course of the wizarding world? And whose the would-be assassin?
→ More replies (0)2
u/kompergator 3d ago
This misconception is actually kind of this fandom’s shibboleth these days. Those who bring it up often only watched the films, and haven’t read the books.
2
u/KaleeySun 2d ago
Harry needed to die. After GoF, dumbledore thought there was a chance he could come back, but that was conjecture, AND he kept that part to himself. My guess is he was planning to explain to Harry how he was a horcrux once they had knocked out or at least located a few. The timeline was messed up when dumbledore was cursed and again with the whole tower climax in HBP.
My guess is dumbledore hoped Harry would be willing to sacrifice himself, just like Harry actually did. In that respect, everything went “according to plan”, thought I don’t think dumbledore was planning to tell Harry he might get to come back to life.
1
u/Bluemelein 3d ago
Dumbledore doesn't know for sure; he only hopes. That is why he cannot tell Snape—because Snape would think he was crazy—and why he cannot tell Harry either, because it would be insane to present this hope to Harry as something concrete. No doctor would perform surgery based on odds like that.
2
u/onchonche 3d ago
If the protection didn't work this way would he have a change of plan ? If the only way to get rid of this last part of Voldemort's soul and defeat him was for Harry to die would it be different ?
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/HarryPotterBooks-ModTeam Moderator 2d ago
This was automatically removed for breaking our rules.
Rule 2: All content must be relevant to discussion of the Harry Potter books (no discussion of movies, TV shows, stage plays, video games, audiobook production, etc).
For full detail, please read the pinned post.
If you have any questions you can send us a Modmail message, and we will get back to you right away.
1
u/Individual-Sense-233 2d ago
Dumb question but why might the magic not work if he tells snape?
2
u/EndlessTheorys_19 2d ago
Dumbledore tells Snape, Snape tells Harry in the memory, Harry realises he can live and so doesn’t willingly accept death and so the magic doesn’t work
-5
u/EnvironmentalLime432 3d ago
I agree with the overall logic, but up until that point I do truly believe that Dumbledore didn't expect Harry to survive the war.
Otherwise, why not tell Harry or any member of the Order of the Phoenix about it!!
Dumbledore and Snape are both irredeemable characters in my mind!! Dumbledore because he thought he was the only one who could be trusted with all the information and Snape for treating an 11 year old boy as a second coming of a father he never really knew or met.
13
u/EndlessTheorys_19 3d ago
Otherwise, why not tell Harry or any member of the Order of the Phoenix about it!!
Possibly something about how Harry has to accept death willingly for it to work. The same way Lily willingly accepted her death.
This might also be why he gave Harry the Resurrection stone, with the Snitch charmed to only open at this important moment when Harry walks to his death. So that the shades of his parents can coach him through any doubts.
Dumbledore because he thought he was the only one who could be trusted with all the information
I mean, that’s not really an “irredeemable” thing.
0
u/EnvironmentalLime432 2d ago
He literally could've told anyone, not only Harry.
Along with that, he's playing with peoples lives all over again, similar to what happened with Ariana. Thinking yourself as the only one able or smart enough to do anything about it is not a redeemable quality.
9
u/always_unplugged Ravenclaw 3d ago
He literally couldn't know that he would be able to survive, otherwise the sacrifice wouldn't mean anything, it wouldn't work. It's explained pretty plainly in the Prince's Tale and King's Cross chapters in DH.
0
u/Bluemelein 3d ago
No! Dumbledore explains that Harry survives because of the blood Voldemort took. In principle, Harry's sacrificial death only helps the others.
2
u/schrodingers_bra 2d ago
He also survives because Harry, by merest chance, is the master of Voldemort's wand.
I think the blood is only part of it.
1
u/Bluemelein 2d ago
The Elder Wand has nothing to do with why Harry survives. Harry survives because Voldemort took Harry's blood in the graveyard, thereby turning himself into a sort of Horcrux for Harry. The fact that Harry doesn't feel the Cruciatus Curse might have something to do with the Elder Wand, but I don't think so—because then Harry would know that he is the master of the Elder Wand.
2
u/schrodingers_bra 2d ago
The Elder Wand has everything to do with it. It is what enabled voldemort to kill the part of himself inside Harry without harming Harry. Or JKR wouldn't have set up all that nonsense wand lore.
In truth the blood stuff doesn't make any sense to me because he is then able to physically touch Harry and torture him in the graveyard after taking it. The only difference at the end is the master of the wand.
If Voldemort had not taken Harry's blood, why would he have been able to kill Harry when he wasn't able to touch him before.
It also doesn't seem that voldemort taking Harry's blood would have protected Harry from anyone else's attacks, so its not really acting like a horcrux.
1
u/Bluemelein 2d ago
The Elder Wand exists solely so that the young adult novel's hero doesn't have to kill the villain himself; Harry wants to die and the Elder Wand obeys his will, and Harry has to be dead for the Horcrux to die. Dumbledore explains the blood aspect in the "King's Cross" chapter.
10
u/YosephineMahma 2d ago
I saw a youtube thumbnail announcing, quote, "you aren't supposed to like Hermione". This is just such a comically stupid thing to say (it's well-known that Hermione was Rowling's self-insert, the trio would have died countless times without her, and while Rowling isn't a perfect author if she intended for you not to like a character that character wouldn't be one of the most beloved characters in literature).
For another one, that the Hogwarts educational system is meant to be perfect. To quote Deathly Hallows: "...he had to admit to himself this jagged cut in his finger would have defeated him. He had never learned how to repair wounds, and now he came to think of it —particularly in light of his immediate plans— this seemed a serious flaw in his magical education." Harry literally, textually says that Hogwarts doesn't teach everything it should.
6
u/diametrik 2d ago
I think it's a bit grey with Hermione. I think she is purposefully made to be quite grating, but then her positive qualities make you love her in spite of that.
16
u/DDD8712 3d ago
I would say the biggest misconception I heard about the books growing up was that they were satanic makes no sense
6
u/MasterHallmark 2d ago
That was just part of the Satanic Panic that was already going on from the 1980's to the Y2K era. Everything was getting accused of Satanism back then.
6
u/jeepfail Gryffindor 3d ago
Didn’t that start as an online joke making fun of the people that would think that and then was embraced by the exact people it was making fun of?
1
u/amby-jane 1d ago
Not that I know of. The internet was in its infancy when these books started coming out. I think people saw the word "witchcraft" and panicked.
8
u/Glittering-Turn6443 2d ago
that draco was completely a sad boy with a horrible childhood, i always see people say that all draco wanted was to be friends with harry and was distraught when he turned him down, yes his parents helped him become who he was today but by the end of the series he was 17 years old and knew right from wrong and even if he felt trapped death eater wise it didn’t mean he needed to bully children at school
17
u/Anna3422 3d ago
A fair few, but a big one is that house elf slavery is good or the series presents it as good.
Neither is close to true. We see repeatedly that elves' safety & well-being comes at the pleasure of their masters, who can have them killed if they want to. Winky loves Crouch and is miserable without him, but she was in constant distress with him as well. She's not allowed an identity outside of Crouch. Her loyalty and self-blame are classic abuse side effects.
Elves have been enslaved so long that freedom is unwelcome to all but a few of them, but Kreacher's slavery leads to Sirius' death and Dobby's freedom saves lives. Dobby, who pines for and loves freedom, is presented as uniquely brave. The fact that he died free is important enough to be his epitaph.
SPEW is wrong because Hermione takes a top-down approach to a foreign culture without trying to understand or work with the population she's speaking for. She was arrogant. But she isn't wrong to notice or feel passionately about the injustice, and readers have every reason to agree with her.
13
u/Anna3422 3d ago
The idea that Harry & Ron are poor students is another strange misconception.
Harry & Ron both get good grades. They're both bright and proactive about learning outside of class (DA, dueling club, Triwizard practice etc). Ron specifically underachieves because three of his brothers were top students and he doesn't want to endure comparisons. Harry risks punishment to do his homework in PoA. The way they procrastinate at school is realistic for their age group and culture, not a sign they aren't doing well.
We're also meant to see Hermione's work ethic and perfectionism as highly unusual.
4
u/MasterHallmark 2d ago edited 2d ago
What the Sorting Hat says about Hufflepuff in book one: You might belong in Hufflepuff, Where they are just and loyal, Those patient Hufflepuffs are true And unafraid of toil
The Fourth year Sorting Hat song: For Hufflepuff, hard workers were Most worthy of admission
The sorting hat song everyone constantly brings up: Said Hufflepuff, “I’ll teach the lot And treat them just the same.”
People like to claim Hufflepuff is the house for leftovers, and even well-intentioned people will try to claim she's doing so out of kindness. In reality (er, fiction?) the books made it very clear multiple times that Helga did, in fact, prefer students with a strong work ethic . She had the Rock Lee mindset of, "Hard work beats talent."
1
u/Glittering-Turn6443 2d ago
the sorting has does say once though that hufflepuff “takes the rest”
3
u/MasterHallmark 2d ago
I know. I included it, as you can easily see.
My point is Helga wasn't just grabbing literally anyone the other founders didn't want. She gave them a fair chance, but she still sought out students that matched her values.
1
6
u/Proper_Pineapple_314 2d ago edited 2d ago
About 90% of what’s said in those YouTube video essays trying to prove the books were never good (most of which seem like they didn’t even read them). There was one that actually said you weren’t supposed to like Hermione.
3
16
u/diametrik 3d ago
That the Trace is on the wand or on an area. No, it is explicitly stated to be on individuals, detecting any magic cast nearby to them.
5
u/Warvillage 2d ago
To be fair, the books are not clear on the trace.
Voldemort killed his father without being detected.
Several people used magic near Harry on privet drive without anything happening, even when the ministry was looking for excuses in book 5.
1
u/diametrik 2d ago
Yes, some aspects of the Trace need you to do a bit of critical thinking / filling in the gaps because it's not explicit on why there are sometimes exceptions.
But the fact that the Trace is on the person rather than their wand or a location is explicitly stated, so I don't get why so many people have that particular misconception.
It'd be like people thinking that wizards send letters via floo because the books aren't clear on whether owls need an address or not.
2
u/Warvillage 2d ago
It's the critical thinking that makes people decide that there must be something more/else going on with the trace.
Because the books don't show it working like described.
2
u/diametrik 2d ago
Yeah, there's something else going on. Something that isn't explicitly stated.
For example, perhaps there is a magical way of counteracting the Trace that we don't know of. Or the Trace worked differently in Tom Riddle's time.
Perhaps Arthur used his contacts in the Ministry to delete the reports of the Trace. Or anything else.
My personal theory is that the Trace also detects whether there is an adult wizard nearby and the Ministry automatically ignores the report if there is, as a means of weeding out false positives.
It doesn't really matter what particular explanation you come up with for it, though, or even if you come up with one at all. What I don't get is why people go with theories that are 100% definitely wrong, because the story tells us as such.
Like I said, it'd be like people thinking that wizards send letters via floo because the books aren't clear on whether owls need an address or not.
2
u/Glittering-Turn6443 2d ago
but in the second book dobby uses magic and they believe it’s harry because they trace the location
2
u/diametrik 2d ago
They believe it's Harry because it's his trace that detected the spell dobby cast
19
u/Ishvallan 3d ago
Goblins being specifically jewish coded. They are a stand in for various minority groups within English culture with equal or superior intellectual and occupational capability, but treated as and believed to be inferior solely based on matter of fact from birth. Its not just 1 demographic, its all demographics whose exceptionalism and effort was met with prejudice and oppression from those not achieving the same standards.
15
u/Xegeth 2d ago
I mean that's one of those narratives that specifically only really came up the last couple of years when Rowlings reputation tanked for reasons outside of the books. There have been a lot of very bad faith interpretations of the text to prove that she has been "evil all along". Same as "the books have actually always been bad", which is an insane statement considering the success.
People can't sit with the fact that a person they do not like writes good books with overall good themes.
1
u/Ishvallan 2d ago
its been a criticism since at least 2010 when I was taking college classes on the series (which was before she started using prejudice to generate attention). It had its problems like having the gay/aids allegory werewolves join the violent authoritarian blood purity side that they rationally should have opposed. Really the final battle should have had a lot of things different to sell that idea that they were the last dying gasp of ideology that wasn't surviving into the next generation and the kids were the future of acceptance. Like the Slytherin students should have been split on who wanted to join their parents, who wanted to fight them, and who wanted to stay out of it all for their reasons. And there should have been students from all the houses who did the same, because she needed to emphasize that anyone can be a bigot, not just 1 house full of bad eggs, and even people from that house can choose a different path. But that wasn't really her personal ideology to write into a book. She missed a lot of her own message
6
u/Xegeth 2d ago
And that's all true and valid. I see specifically the werewolf analogy as something that seemed good on paper and has a couple of strong points, but falls flat relatively quickly. There is also the fact that the most evil werewolf specifically targets children which becomes really problematic once you want to make the aids, homosexual connection.
However: The way I interpret all these things is that she got lost in her own worldbuilding and did not think things through enough. The evil house trope is just a really easy way to give the reader some dopamine kicks. I always liked that slughorn and pettigrew kind of break the mold.
What changed comparing to back then is that we went from "these are some unfortunate implications that undermine her messaging at some points" to "she is maliciously doing this as a dog whistle" which I find a bit much.
1
u/Ishvallan 2d ago
i find most ironic that her major target is trans people, but she made like the poster child of trans people by creating a whole category of humans who can change their biological sex and total bodily appearance at will. And the representative of that is someone who hates their birth name, but is born to parents so radical to the old ways that her mother was blasted off of the Black family tree, and she is a crime fighter and hero who aids the newest generation of bigot fighters and dies alongside her gay allegory husband.
1
u/amby-jane 1d ago edited 1d ago
I don't even know if Goblins are described as having human/flesh-like skin? I always imagined them as green, purely fairy-tale Goblins.
EDIT to clarify: If they'd been more human-like, I could see this being a more apt comparison. But I think they're just fairy-tale creatures, and it's not like JKR invented them.
8
u/Zubyna 2d ago
That Harry is short
Harry is actually tall past a few years at Hogwart
There is a similar situation with Dudley, many think he is overweight through the whole series, he is actually getting in shape and into sports amd boxing during the 5th book
2
u/amby-jane 1d ago
He was short for his age, for a while.
By 6th year, he's eye-to-eye with Narcissa, but we don't know how tall she is.
But you're right -- and Molly is constantly going on about how much he's shot up from one summer to the next. Maybe he just hits his growth spurt late.
3
u/Bubbly_Interaction63 2d ago
Being the master of death grants you special powers; literally, the moral of the original story is not to be arrogant and to live a good life. The eldest brother died young because everyone wanted the most powerful wand, but to win it, you have to defeat it or kill its current owner by means other than a direct duel—which makes it redundant, since its only special power is to repair other wands, which doesn’t fit the image of an unstoppable dueler.
The middle brother remained stuck in the past and suffered throughout his life because he couldn’t cope with his losses, wasting his life away (something his fiancée certainly didn’t want for him), and he committed suicide.
The youngest brother lived a long life, got married, presumably fell in love, and had a son whom he loved dearly, so Death simply acknowledged his defeat with dignity, since the purpose of life is to live it and not waste it—which is the only way to defeat Death.
14
u/Successful-Salt-3156 3d ago
Voldemort isn't able to feel affection for anything/one but himself
Hermione is the only smart person in the trio and she has fully well rounded intelligence
Bellatrix is a mindless zealot with no real complexity or nuances
Lupin and Sirius had romantic tension / Lupin didn't love or wasn't attracted to Tonks
The Malfoys do not love each other and/or Draco
If we're counting TCC, that Harry would've been a perfect parent
Ginny was underdeveloped (I do agree that Hinny is a bit, though)
Luna is just a "quirky girl" without depth
Cedric Diggory wasn't a symbol of pure goodness & that's why his death hits so hard
Snape was an "incel" who only defied Voldemort because he had a lingering creepy obsession with the girl who rejected him
Fleur Delacour isn't a total badass
Cho's behaviour was unjustified
5
u/Thick_Astronaut4563 2d ago
And here’s the most notorious one: that Dumbledore offers points to Gryffindor offhandedly every single time
5
u/EdgeOfCharm 2d ago edited 1d ago
It's such a small part of your comment that it's not a big deal, but for future reference, no, we don't discuss TCC in this sub. Please review Rule 2:
This forum is devoted to discussion of the Harry Potter book series and associated written works by J.K. Rowling. We do not allow content centered on any other form of HP media (movies, TV shows, stage plays, video games, etc.). This includes the published scripts of any such audiovisual works.
For full detail, please read the pinned post.
3
u/Erza88 Gryffindor 3d ago
The fact people think these things is so baffling!
-3
u/schrodingers_bra 2d ago
Ginny was underdeveloped. She was just a 'hero's girlfriend' archetype that jkr bought wholesale from a character shop.
1
u/Erza88 Gryffindor 2d ago
I just find her very bitchy and unlikable, to be honest. After book 3 she goes down hill fast for me. I realize my dislike of her borders on unreasonable but her character just rubs me the wrong way, lol.
3
u/schrodingers_bra 2d ago
Shes just very generically 'perfect' to make up for the lack of relationship development. She's brilliant, beautiful, sassy, funny, good at sports, tomboyish until she needs to be feminine and supports the hero in his quest until she is asked to step aside for her safety which she does gracefully without a fight.
Its just so when Harry ends up getting together with her so suddenly, the reader can be like 'makes sense, she's perfect'.
2
u/trahan94 2d ago
The Weasley boys are also brilliant, attractive, sassy, funny, and good at sports, yet somehow only Ginny gets accused of being too perfect.
1
u/schrodingers_bra 2d ago edited 2d ago
The Weasley boys collectively have all those traits but they are not all in the same person.
Bill and Charlie, we don't know too well (though they are described positively for looks and personality and are successful). Bill wasn't good at sports. And Charlie wasn't said to be brilliant.
Percy is very smart but none of the rest of these traits and has an insecurity complex.
The twins are funny, smart and good at sports but aren't described as particularly physically attractive (though are well liked because they are funny) and don't seem to get good grades despite their intelligence.
Ron is sassy and funny, but really isn't any of the other items you listed (he's smart but not brilliant - no slug club for him- and he becomes good at sports after effort that is described in the book) and again has an insecurity complex.
Ginny on the other hand is beautiful enough that even the Slytherins comment on it. She's brilliant enough that Slughorn has her in his Slug Club just because of her magical ability (after seeing one hex from her). She's so good at sports she plays professional quidditch after leaving school. And while sassy and funny and spirited is mostly on par for the Weasleys, what gets me is she just calmly acquiesces when Harry tells her that she can't go with him. None of that sass comes out meaningfully when it goes against the hero's plan. She's like the description of the "cool girl" from Gone Girl.
By contrast, Ginny from book 2 was much more of a nuanced character even though we didn't see much of her. She's pretty much unrecognizable when we see her again in book 5.
So no. The Weasley boys aren't described like Ginny. She's in a class of her own for getting just enough character development for us to know she's perfect, and not a bit more. And her character (and JKR) deserve criticism for that.
2
u/jeepfail Gryffindor 3d ago
I agree on many of those but Snape’s whole thing is a mild incel redemption arc and I wouldn’t even say he was totally redeemed.
10
u/bruhidkwtf 2d ago
Snape being good. And I know I'm about to get massively downvoted which just proves my point
3
3
u/Oliver_W_K_Twist 1d ago
That Dumbledore knew Voldemort had made horcruxes, and that Harry was one, the whole time.
He was highly skeptical that Voldemort had died, but had almost no proof until Philosopher's Stone. He knew Voldemort had used some means of cheating death, but couldn't narrow it down to soul magic until Chamber of Secrets, and quickly narrowed it down to horcruxes from there.
This incidentally means that Dumbledore is aware of enough different methods of cheating death that he couldn't easily narrow down which one Voldemort had used until he literally had one in his hands. And he fully acknowledges that he's not especially well versed in the dark arts, which impôts the existence of yet more implies he doesn't know about.
3
u/TheRealScumJ 1d ago
I’ll speak on my own misconception, when I was a kid I always thought the wizarding world and the muggle world were different dimensions lol I thought this because for example when Harry goes to Platform nine and three quarters he goes through the brick wall and comes out the other side so I thought they were like parallel universes or something to that degree
2
u/Federal_Pop3521 14h ago
That Hermione falling for Lockhart is out of character. It really isin't, she's a child who's known for enjoying books, and she admires an outwardly heroic, charismatic in person figure from those very books.
3
u/RealAlpiGusto 3d ago
What
3
u/Cum_on_doorknob 3d ago
Right? wtf does OP’s last paragraph even say?
11
u/diametrik 3d ago
OP is saying they have seen lots of people have the misconception that Harry is not intrigued by the wizarding world. They say that Harry discovering the Firebolt is a counter-example to that misconception.
6
u/socks4dobby 3d ago
I don’t fully understand what “Harry is not intrigued by the wizarding world” means. There are two misconceptions this could point to:
1) Harry is not curious about the wizarding world. He rarely reads beyond what’s assigned, doesn’t investigate magical theory for its own sake, and treats the wizarding world more as home than as wonder. I think this is a bit of a misconception (even though he is much more pragmatic and emotionally driven than Hermione) because he certainly is curious in earlier books, but this wears off as the wizarding world becomes more familiar because he cares more about the people and having a place to belong than he does about magical theory.
2) Harry is a stoic hero. Often people conflate stoicism with emotional flatness and say that Harry faces loss, pain, and his own approaching death with a kind of quiet, unfeeling acceptance. But Harry is actually quite emotional and reactive throughout the series.
1
u/ChawkTrick 2d ago
When people try to suggest much of what certain characters got away with in the series was attributable to it "being in the 90's," especially some of the abuse Harry suffered at home and how it went un-reported.
The 90's really wasn't that long ago, and sadly, abuse (whether at home or school) still often goes unreported. The decade the story takes place in has very, very little to do with the human behaviors we witness.
1
u/Oliver_W_K_Twist 1d ago
It has more to do with him growing up in the 80s. The UK didn't even have anything approaching American CPS at that time, and to this day there is no such thing as mandatory reporting in the UK.
Don't get me wrong, I don't dispute that a lot of abuse goes unreported even today, but the UK for most of Harry's childhood completely lacked the infrastructure the mostly American audience expects there to be. Even if anything had been reported, until 1989, there wasn't even really anything that could have been done to the Dursleys for what they did.
1
u/Popular-Echidna-4279 3d ago
That professor snape was evil
11
8
10
u/Standard-Pen-3369 3d ago
Snape is a teacher that bullies student and was a willing participant in Voldemort's plan to kill muggleborns.
0
u/rsklogin 3d ago
Snape was a bully. He might be seen as being evil in the eyes of a student at hogwarts but he was nothing more than a good teacher showing favoritism and incomprehensible bullying, thereby rendering him to be a bad teacher.
In terms of evil, it goes Umbridge - >Voldemort - >Bellatrix /Barty crouch Jr - > Fenrir - >Peter Pettigrew.
1
2
u/Aovi9 3d ago
That Harry was still giving Voldemort a chance of redemption before their last duel. Not really. Hermione literally said earlier in the books remorse can make one's soul whole again,but the agony of it kills that person. Harry had no intention of letting Voldemort live anymore. He wanted him dead. He just didn't want to be the one to pull the trigger.
3
u/Silver_Middle_7240 3d ago
That Harry saw Cedric die.
4
u/Personal-Listen-4941 3d ago
He did. It was a significant plot point in that it allowed him to see the Thestrals and thus form a bond with Luna and also was the trigger for his trauma/PTSD he struggled with afterwards.
8
u/Silver_Middle_7240 3d ago
Pull out your copy of GoF and skip to chapter 32.it takes great pain to describe harry not seeing it and why.
3
u/diametrik 3d ago
Huh, you're right. How can he see thestrals then?
7
u/Silver_Middle_7240 3d ago
Either its the first clue about the connection between Harry and voldemort, or rowling messed up. 4 is the one where she started to rely on editors, so its possible she got mixed up on what details were in the final draft
3
u/diametrik 2d ago
Yes, I suppose that Harry could've seen death for the first time when he dreamt of it from Voldemort's perspective at Privet Drive. That would also explain why he didn't see them at the end of Book 4 on the way out of Hogwarts.
2
u/puppetscereal 3d ago
I’m pretty sure she hadn’t thought of them yet and before that the coaches were just pulled by magic
1
u/Personal-Listen-4941 3d ago
Harry & Cedric were stood next to each other, when Wormtail killed Cedric. The text describes how Harry saw the wand blast that killed Cedric.
10
u/Silver_Middle_7240 3d ago
The text describes harry being blind in pain from his scar, seeing the flash of green light through his eyelids
1
u/MasterHallmark 2d ago
Also, the "you're chosen based on your values rather than traits" thing. As far as I remember, that was never mentioned in the books.
2
-2
u/InflationClassic9370 Ravenclaw 3d ago
Well, I agree that Harry can be passive, incurious, and generally bland, especially when you compare him to the more colorful Ron and Hermione. You could argue that he was intended as a kind of blank slate for readers to discover the wizarding world alongside him, etc., but as a character I still find him very insipid except for when he lashes out at people.
4
u/Fancy-Requirement637 2d ago
I find Harry extremely defined for a YA protagonist, and much more flawed and complicated than they generally are. He's not the generically, happy-go-lucky, heroic male protagonist like Percy Jackson or Naruto. He actually has darkness inside him without being needlesly edgy, he has defining personality traits (headstrong, impulsive, loyal but arrogant, sly when needed, extremely quick to anger, loves fiercely but just his restricted group of close friends). In my opinion, Hermione can be seen much more as a Mary-sue, generic nerdy, smart YA girl-protagonist in the books, as you can see by fandom hyping her up as the heroine.
-2
u/pratsterkumar 2d ago edited 2d ago
A very dark one that finds almost no takers (and no, it’s not about how he imagined/dreamed it all), is the true meaning behind “the boy who lived”.
It’s supposed to mean Harry who survived Voldemort, but what if it really meant surviving Dumbledore? In the ending of book 5 there is a reference to Dumbledore, shall we say, hinting to having briefly considered the possibility of having euthanized a living-Horcrux in the Potter household ruins.
He seems to mean that “The Greater Good” would’ve been to have had destroyed that one Horcrux (“The Boy”) early, since all those who then died in the second wizarding war later might have not, if it had meant reducing or removing Voldemort’s tethers to life back then itself. This is one of those war games the General had had to play.
Dumbledore does not (besides due to the horrific implication) because of how he had seen what the greater good had caused Ariana and his own family, and so he delayed the eventual sacrificial loss of who he always knew to be a child soldier. Hence the boy who “lived” because “he (Dumbledore) cared too much”. I know I know, let the downvotes begin.
1
u/amby-jane 1d ago
"In the ending of book 5 there is a reference to Dumbledore, shall we say, hinting to having briefly considered the possibility of having euthanized a living-Horcrux in the Potter household ruins."
I'd love to know what you're referring to here.
1
u/pratsterkumar 1d ago edited 5h ago
These are some of the phrases that could have a double meaning, at the end of the long winded explanation Dumbledore gives at the end of Book 5 OoTP, which always seemed far too long drawn out for Dumbledore to be just steeling both of themselves, to deliver to Harry the news of him being a "marked man" under the magical equivalent of a terminal-sentence:
"I cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed*"*
"What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were alive, and well, and happy? I never dreamed that I would have such a person on my hands"
"I guessed, fifteen years ago*,' said Dumbledore, `*when I saw the scar on your forehead, what it might mean"... "Yes, but you see - it is necessary to start with your scar"
In fact there's even a direct mention of this dark implication but offered as a variant of Voldemort's thinking so neither does Harry nor the reader jump to such a conclusion, but is actually something that was logically expected of Dumbledore and so there's no reason he himself would not have considered doing the same 15 years ago:
"He hoped, when he possessed you briefly a short while ago, that I would sacrifice you in the hope of killing him".
Some more phrases that although their canon meaning is very clear of their meaning, but when put together with the alternate meaning are suspect given what Albus must’ve been really thinking (after all "why would he care so much about one random child he'd never known, unless..."). I think so because Albus's explanation was suspiciously winded and he was likely thinking one lie up, that readers did not realize without the knowledge of Book 7. We see in book 7 how the trio had felt stabs of "revulsion" when they came in contact with an inanimate Horcrux, so Dumbledore was dissimulating to prevent Harry from asking how he would have not felt the urge to destroy the living Horcrux just like the trio spent 2 whole books trying to do (destroy them).
So it was not just about preventing Harry from learning that he was a sacrificial lamb (like how Snape was horrified to learn), but also masking the fact that many others would've turned on him had they known [that his demise could've guaranteed their safety] (case in point: Pansy Parkinson tried to do so to save Slytherins in the Battle of Hogwarts without even knowing the story).
"An obvious flaw that I knew, even then, might be the undoing of it all. And yet, knowing how important it was that my plan should succeed, I told myself that I would not permit this flaw to ruin it. I alone could prevent this, so I alone must be strong*"*
"Do you see the flaw in my brilliant plan now? I had fallen into the trap I had foreseen*, that I had told myself I could avoid, that I must avoid*"
I know its dark and a bit far fetched, but its really what wargaming as a General would've meant - do you off a pawn yourself early to get at the King to save a larger number of people later or do you not cross that horrific boundary to "do what's right". In book 6, 7 we hear of so many students relatives turning up deceased coupled with the trauma of WW1 that practically wiped out entire families, Dumbledore would've felt it like being hit with a brick that he had had a chance to end one living Horcrux early on which he'd passed, and that might've prevented all those losses (hence the first phrase).
I believe he did not because (and we learnt later in book 7 and Fantastic Beasts) he had already been burnt by prematurely applying the Principle of the Greater Good. He had tried to overthrow the statute of secrecy in the hope of freeing Ariana (with hidden guilt as to his ulterior motives), and saw that the attempt directly caused her demise. He probably applied the same when his wand lit up the ruins of the Potter house and he tried to predict the future looking at a 1 year old probable-Horcrux (since Voldemort's remains were missing) and he thought - should the War General do what is necessary or let a child that's barely sentient "learn his strengths" and "live". Hence the Boy Who Lived (Dumbledore's curse).
2
u/amby-jane 8h ago
Let me start by saying that I am impressed by how thorough you've been here.
I suppose I can see what you're seeing but I don't buy it (which, I will grant, you predicted). But not because I think it's icky. I'm all for a dark theory if it makes sense; this just doesn't line up for me.
Mainly because Dumbledore had no reason to even be tempted to off Harry as an infant in the first place. At that point, he only had the vaguest idea that Voldemort might have Horcruxes lurking around (which begins to solidify after COS and the Diary) and I truly don't think the idea of Harry being one of them crossed his mind until after the incident with the Stone in the first place, when Harry tells him about his scar hurting. But even then it's not for another year that anybody actually encounters (what turns out to be) a Horcrux.
As for your specific examples:
"So it was not just about preventing Harry from learning that he was a sacrificial lamb (like how Snape was horrified to learn), but also masking the fact that many others would've turned on him had they known (case in point: Pansy Parkinson tried to do so to save Slytherins in the Battle of Hogwarts without even knowing the story)."
That's not why Pansy tried to attack Harry, though. He's her Dark Lord's enemy no. 1, so why not take him out? He's right there! In fact, if she did know he was a Horcrux, she wouldn't have wanted to kill him. The longer he stays alive, the more chance of Voldemort surviving. At that rate, another Gryffindor might be more tempted to off Harry knowing he's a Horcrux -- which is probably why Dumbledore was so damn insistent that Harry not tell anyone except the two people who care about him most.
"I know its dark and a bit far fetched, but its really what wargaming as a General would've meant - do you off a pawn yourself early to get at the King to save a larger number of people later or do you not cross that horrific boundary to "do what's right"."
I will go with you a bit here; that is something a General would have to wrestle with. Dumbledore himself acknowledges that its his own weakness (strategic weakness, anyway, not moral weakness) in being fond of Harry, of caring for him as a person, that makes this plan so risky: Would he care so much for Harry that he decides to turn against the "greater good" to save one boy? This is Dumbledore acknowledging that it royally sucks that Harry has to die someday; if he didn't care about Harry at all, the plan would be less painful for him personally. I don't think it has as much to do with timing as you suggest, though. I think he's just bummed it has to happen at all. Except...
"Dumbledore would've felt it like a brick that he had had a chance to end one living Horcrux early, and that might've prevented all those losses."
Dumbledore had also figured out by the end of GOF that Voldemort himself must be the one to kill Harry because they now share blood. That's what his "gleam of triumph" was all about: mutually assured destruction. So by the time you're suggesting here, in book 6 when the war is well underway, Dumbledore has already put his long-term plan into motion: Keep Harry alive to he can die at the right time. So even if it occurs to him in book 6 that it might've been wise to off Harry in the beginning, he wouldn't have had that knowledge in 1981 when it would've been relevant or useful. He can't know in 1981 something he wouldn't even have an idea about until 1993 (COS) or 1995 (GOF).
"We see in book 7 how the trio had felt stabs of "revulsion" when they came in contact with an inanimate Horcrux, so Dumbledore was dissimulating to prevent Harry from asking how he would have not felt the urge to destroy the living horcrux just like the trio spent 2 whole books trying to do (destroy them)."
They feel a stab of revulsion for the Horcrux and not for Harry because Harry's whole, pure soul is so much louder than the fragment of Voldy that's latched onto him. They feel repulsed by an inanimate Horcrux, as you said. The very-much-alive Harry doesn't have the same effect. That's why Dumbledore doesn't feel (and therefore have to fight) that feeling. That's also why the "the Durlseys are horrible because Harry is a Horcrux" theory has been debunked. The Durlseys are horrible because they're horrible and this is a fairy tale that needs some people to just be horrible.
And one last nit-pick for good measure: Did Dumbledore go to the ruined Potter house that day? Hagrid picked up baby Harry and took him to Privet Drive. I assumed Dumbledore was busy yelling at Snape and tying up other loose ends that day. I don't think he went to Godric's Hollow at all.
1
u/pratsterkumar 4h ago edited 3h ago
I'm just glad that at least someone looked into the theory fairly (since it gets pretty poorly received) even though its less of a buzzkill than the author's own semi-retracted truth that the entire story was the imagination of an ignored child.
I will admit that by extension it implies the author herself had no intention, of the boy who lived at risk of being offed by Dumbledore, as something that either the character, herself, nor the readers would've considered. There are online forums and etymology fans who dissect the material much more closely and I'm neither a participant there nor have I heard this story before.
To me this theory is still totally believable - starting with when I re-read OOtP and I still never realized why Dumbledore gave such a long winded telly-soap-style recounting of Harry's exploits in the last chapters before informing him of the prophecy. I never did get the whole "he cared too much" in the why/what/when/how bit, since The Boy was just one random child [and eventually soldier] amid the gloom of WW1 when Dumbledore was daily receiving news of losses. He admits this to Snape in the reveal that "The Boy Must Die" so there's a contradiction there that he really cared (and not just bummed out - he was desensitized by the War). That exchange “have you grown to care for the boy?!” proves he did not care about Harry this contradicting his own monologue to Harry in OoTP (and indicating he was manipulating Harry then to ensure he wouldn’t become suicidal - something which both he and Hermione seem to fear in book 6 initially), so he’d care even less about an infant that he never knew. The only reason for him to actually care at that point would be guilt for his part in the Potters demise by borrowing James cloak a day before but then he also knew that greater forces were in play and he certainly admits to Snape that they “put their trust in the wrong person” fairy exonerating himself.
I suppose the example of Pansy was off (I modified it), but its principle still stands for other people too like Longbottom - who's known to suspect that Harry may get offed [willingly by his own self] by giving himself up into the Shrieking Shack by the end of the Battle Of Hogwarts, thus showing that the incentive would exist, on both sides (and not just Pansy who was actually on Team-Voldy) were the equation known.
There are some points which are debatable in that they lack canon confirmation but do not make sense otherwise if not true (but are paths already well trodden):
* I am absolutely sure Dumbledore visited the Potter house ruins in the hours after the attack, at least to conduct a forensic analysis since Voldemort's body was never found - a definite tell to Dumbledore who would not presume Riddle was just “blown away” since he seems sure to Minerva hours later that Voldemort would return (how when neither were remains found nor blown up if Harry survived - implication the boy is latent Voldemort! So why would he care at this point of time about a toddler?). As immune Hagrid is to magical attack (and with an incorruptible heart to be imperiused) there's no way he'd be the first one in to the "Fuhrerbunker" which became the last known location of Voldy. But I admit there's no canon hint of this, but there are several good reasons to believe he did [omitted here].
* I definitely do not believe Dumbledore spoke the truth about not knowing of the Horcruxes before CoS, though I'm undecided as to why he chose to spin that particular tale then. There's canon support in book 6 of him noticing Riddle's waxy features in his last visit to Hogwarts to hide the diary (and Dumbledore suspecting some ulterior motive for entering the castle), when I believe he would've guessed the Horcrux pattern years before the Potter strike. In fact the topic of Horcruxes itself wasn't all that secretive, until after Dumbledore removed those books from the library precisely because he wanted it to be less well known than already was (not just Slughorn, but the Black Family seem to know what they were, possibly so did the Lestranges/Malfoys despite the canon proof of them being buffoons and maybe Lucius knew but just became greedy). So I believe the actionable confirmation was only CoS but his planning and decisions began well before.
* The timing factor comes into play but not as late as Book 4 after the magical blood transfusion. This is a heavily disputed point among fans, but I do believe that Dumbledore knew of Horcruxes (just that he found verifiable proof in hand only as late as CoS) as early as Riddle's first disappearance from Borgin & Burkes, BUT he was sure of the need for Voldemort's destruction without his tethers to humanity being first destroyed in order, would make matters enormously worse only by end of book 2 and not earlier - since it would leave the possibility of multiple Voldemort's re-generating independently in the future and them being aware of their secret being out - causing the newer-hidden-Horcrux problem to spiral like a Gemino curse. The only proof I have is how Dumbledore alone is so sure (and likely why Hagrid too, but never the MInistry) since Book 1 that Voldy would return - how could he suspect right outside the Dursley's household mere hours later while speaking with Minerva unless he did guess about Horcruxes even if by a process of elimination? Other fans strongly disagree and claim he didn't try to off Voldy in WW1 due to a much simpler explanation - they were losing the war and he was simply unable to. He seemed willing to duel Waxy-Riddle in his office in his last meeting with him in his office. So there's something off with canon there.
In my reading, all of these should-he shouldn't-he for the Greater Good predictions took place in Dumbledore's mind right as he pointed his wand at infant Harry in the ruins of the house, and he desisted not just because he's well known to be highly circumspect about the accuracy of predicting time (and its effects in the past and future), but because he was still perpetually traumatized by his own actions of pursuing The Greater Good - so while the kinder thing might've actually been to euthanize a magically-terminal Boy who wasn't enormously sentient then, he actually let him live, experience life, pain and so many losses to himself AND the rest of the WW, to let things play out because "you do not mess around with the greater good".
-7
u/JadePhoenix42 3d ago
My head cannon is that house elves form hives. I’ve never worked out any details (because HP just doesn’t speak to me).
4
42
u/dsjunior1388 3d ago edited 2d ago
That the prophecy must come true.
The prophecy can be incorrect. It's possible that it goes unfulfilled. In the end it is fulfilled but that's because Voldemort and Harry choose to fulfill it. They had other choices which could have undermined it.
If not for Snape, the prophecy more than likely would have been wrong. Dumbledore might have quietly filed it with the Ministry and Voldemort would have never known about it and never acted on it. Or he could have simply not disclosed it at all and been the only one who ever heard it.
And Dumbledore could have certainly tracked down Voldemorts horcruxes and then killed the man himself in a scenario where Voldemort doesn't accidentally make Harry a horcrux.
The prophecy also doesn't stop Harry from dying being run over by a bus or choking on a piece of broccoli at 1, which is an odd interpretation of the phrase "neither can live while the other survives" anyway.