Places to Chat
This thread is
Chatterbox: Blab About Books
Harry Potter Ranting
This thread is...
This thread is for everything you dislike about Harry Potter. I saw some of this discussion on the “Terrible Books” thread, but I thought why not make a new, dedicated thread for it? Actually, I think there have been threads like this before... but those are old and this is new!
There is one rule: always, always be respectful of other peoples’ opinions.
I’ll start. Personally, I love a lot about HP, but there are a few gaping holes. For example, has anyone thought about what wizarding children do before going off to Hogwarts? Or whether/how they learn math and essay-writing and such? Or why Hogwarts is so big when there are only *counts* 10 classes? Or how the schedules of the teachers work, when each teacher teaches every year if students? Or how the Portkey spell works? Or how people keep from accidentally Apparating everywhere? Or why in book one, Harry runs at the divider between platforms 9 and 10, but in later books, he leans through to avoid suspicion? Or what ghosts do all day?
I guess that’s more than a few holes...
Anyway, enjoy ranting!
submitted by Kitten, Pondering
(July 31, 2019 - 4:17 pm)
(July 31, 2019 - 4:17 pm)
I am pretty dislinclined to believe that, since it gives absolutely no hint of it in the books.
(October 21, 2019 - 10:04 am)
Exacly
(October 22, 2019 - 6:37 pm)
I at least thought it was implied when they're describing Dumledore and Grindlewald's childhood relationship, but I agree that there needs to be more of it for it to resonably be called representation, but there defenitly was some hint of it.
(November 10, 2019 - 4:34 pm)
I kind of agree. There could be more of an explanation as to how magic works and that was one of the main reasons I liked the Inheritance Cycle so much. It made sense and created a set of limitations that added to the story.
(August 5, 2019 - 7:59 am)
Yes, absolutely! I generally try not to think about how magic works in books, since the whole point of magic is that it isn’t science or generally possible, but the magic in HP just makes zero sense. Like, I heard that Hermione invented spells. Great! Good for her! How did she do it? No idea!
Also, people can cast spells non-verbally if they’re powerful enough, which totally screws up the word/wand/intention balance.
Oh and as for Muggles/Wizards, that makes no sense! Evidently magic is genetic, right? So let’s outline what we know about magic and determine whether it’s dominant or recessive, shall we?
If magic is a recessive gene: A witch/wizard has to have two copies of the has-magic allele in order to have magic. This means that the parents of Muggleborns must both be homozygous: one dominant and one recessive allele; this resembles how two brown-eyed parents can have a blue-eyed baby. Now, if two witches/wizards have a baby together, this baby must receive two has-magic alleles, so their baby must have magic. But this isn’t true, because there can still be Squibs. In other words, this is contradictory.
On the other hand, if magic is a dominant gene: Anyone with even one copy of the has-magic allele has magic. They must have gotten this allele from one of their parents, so one of their parents had to have magic as well, making Muggleborns impossible. Squibs, however, are possible, if their parents were homozygous (one dominant and one recessive allele) and they happened to receive both recessive alleles.
Oh, and about Squibs: they’re basically Muggles born to a wizard family, except not, since they can see dementors. So they’re sort of in between Muggles and wizards, which doesn’t really work.
I could go on for a long time about this. :)
(August 5, 2019 - 10:46 am)
Okay, I just saw this, and I kind of feel like I should correct this notion in case anyone happens to read this: you're making the assumption that the "magic gene" is a Mendelian trait. The thing is, very few traits are Mendelian in humans. Almost all human traits are instead polygenic, which means that you can't quantify them with a simple Punnett square, as you're doing here with the "magic gene." They are instead controlled by environmental interactions and at least two genes, and they don't follow the black-and-white Mendelian patterns of dominance and recession.
So basically, even if you assume that magic is a gene – which, honestly, I don't necessarily agree with, because it's magic, science doesn't need to apply – it's incredibly unlikely that so complex a trait would be Mendelian. Therefore, it's neither strictly dominant nor strictly recessive, and is instead a totally different, more complicated thing to explain. As in, it's not any sort of plot hole in Harry Potter even if you assume that there's a "magic gene."
(November 19, 2019 - 5:32 pm)
Sorry, it's my biology teacher's fault. :) I don't really know the science of any kind of gene besides those, but you're totally right that it's unlikely to be that simple.
(My CAPTCHA is 'muguh.' That's right, I totally am a Muggle!)
(January 6, 2020 - 11:38 pm)
Yes, I agree with the size of Hogwarts thing- and you're right, Kitten, it says during one of the Quidditch matches that there were 200 Slytherins.
And the whole evil Slytherins thing too! It's so dumb.
So many of the characters are stereotypes! Ron. Neville. Hermione. Dumbledore. Even Draco as the misunderstood bully. Blech.
Does anyone else wonder what happens to Pigwidgeon and Crookshanks in the seventh book? Ron and Hermione obviously didn't take their pets Horcrux hunting, but it's never mentioned what happens to them.
I think I'll find more to say later.
(August 6, 2019 - 9:06 am)
I don’t think it says anywhere, but I’ve always assumed the pets stayed with their families. Though that does make you wonder what happens to Hedwig...
(August 6, 2019 - 4:27 pm)
...Hedwig dies in the seventh book when Harry is being transported to the Burrow...
(August 7, 2019 - 6:33 am)
JK Rowling was so evil at that part.
(August 8, 2019 - 12:59 pm)
So true.
*Bursts into tears*
(October 12, 2019 - 5:58 pm)
yes
(October 24, 2019 - 2:26 pm)
yes
(October 24, 2019 - 2:26 pm)
Here's another thing- how you win someone's wand by beating them in a duel of sorts. So wouldn't DA lessons have left people 'wandless', or their wands wouldn't respond to them anymore?
Also, why doesn't Harry just fix his eyesight? I'm sure there's a spell for it.
(August 11, 2019 - 8:54 am)