Harry Potter and the Questionable Plot Hole
Here’s a Harry Potter brainteaser for you:
In Chamber of Secrets, Harry destroys the Tom Riddle’s Diary Horcrux by stabbing it with a basilisk’s fang. In Deathly Hallows, Hermione destroys the Hufflepuff Cup Horcrux in the same manner. So how is it that the Horcrux inside Harry isn’t destroyed when he is bitten by the basilisk?
I am not the first muggle to raise this question. Not by a long shot. In fact, I didn’t even think of it until I was listening to a recent episode of Mugglecast and a LeakyCon attendee brought it up.
Is it a mistake? Could the great writer J.K. Rowling have made such a glaring error?
No, there is a logical explanation to this seemingly illogical occurence.
Some people have argued that the Horcrux is actually in Harry’s scar and since the basilisk bit him in the arm, the Horcrux was not destroyed. Others insisted that Harry had to die willingly in order for the Horcrux to be defeated. But I’ll turn to J.K. Rowling herself for the definitive explanation. When asked why the Horcrux in Harry is not destroyed when the basilisk attacks, she answered:
“I have been asked that a lot. Harry was exceptionally fortunate in that he had Fawkes. So before he could be destroyed without repair, which is what is necessary to destroy a Horcrux, he was mended. However, I made sure that Fawkes wasn’t around the second time a Horcrux got stabbed by a basilisk fang, so the poison did its work and it was irreparable within a short period of time…. I established early in the book, Hermione says that you destroy a Horcrux by using something so powerful that there’s no remedy. But she does say there is a remedy for basilisk poison but of course it has to be administered immediately and when they stab the cup later – boy I’m really blowing this for anyone who hasn’t finished the book – there’s Fawkes, is my answer. And thank you for giving me a chance to say that because people have argued that quite a lot.” -J.K. Rowling
People have argued that magic is used in the Harry Potter series as a crutch. Whenever the plot doesn’t make sense, magic is used to explain it away. Moreover, they say that J.K. herself isn’t a fan of magic, otherwise it would make more sense and vary more in its potential.
I will admit, the wizards in this series only appear to have a rudimentary handle on magic. The same few spells are cast over and over again with little variation. Only a select group of wizards explore the scope of their magical powers and tweak existing spells to serve their own purposes. Snape, for example, develops the Sectumsempra. Voldemort devises a way in which to stalk wizards who say his name out loud. James Potter, Sirius Black, Peter Pettigrew, and Rita Skeeter turn themselves into animangi. Both Snape and Kingsley Schaklebolt display the ability to send their patronuses on missions. Snape and Voldemort can fly without brooms. And Dumbledore can be invisible without an invisibility cloak.
But we never see such creativity out of Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville, Luna, Ginny, Draco – you get the idea.
I don’t think that J.K. is disinterested in magic and the rules that govern its use and development. I just think her main focus is on the magic of love (wow, that sounds obnoxious). It’s the most powerful form of magic in the series, which is interesting because it’s the only magic both wizards and muggles can use.
So do I think magic is used as a crutch? No. But I also don’t think the Harry Potter series is about magic. And if you really believe the magic in Harry Potter can solve the greatest conflicts of the series, I don’t think you understand the story.
I agree. The true message of this series is not that magic is around us and we should embrace nor is that we should push the physical boundaries through experimentation and invention. The true message is that love is a force more powerful than magic.
As for the piece of Voldemort in Harry, I can accept JK Rowling’s answer. It is important for detractors to remember: Living things are more complex than inanimate objects and are thus governed by slightly different rules. I could write a whole essay on this, but I think I’ll boil it down to one fact. There was only one time in this series in which Harry was fatally injured, and through a complex series of circumstances he survived but the piece did not.
I am glad JKR really had a chance to express that view of this situation… and I agree. Still, it was something that had never bothered me before.
Compared with anything that I have ever read (or watched) before, the whole magical background of the HP series is much more complex than most tales of this sort. They study at a boarding school for seven years! And then, no one really learns the whole scope of everything there is to know about magic. Yes, Snape invented Sectumsempra, but that was not all. He also tweaked the recipes in the potions book so they yielded better results. I was also under the impression that Levicorpus was an invention of James Potter … not true? Fred and George certainly invented a lot of potions, and possibly spells with their efforts independent of schoolwork.
Yes, the overall message is that Love is the most powerful “magical” force, and that thought doesn’t bother me a bit, even when other people groan at the idea. Voldemort sneered at it, but I don’t go along with any of his ideas, even if I am in Slytherin. There is also music, which Dumbledore said was “greater than all we do here (at Hogwarts).” Does it relate to love? and there are the magic words “please” and “thank you” that count in real life, too.
It has only relatively recently occurred to me that Rowling was making fun of magic in these books. There are so many instances where the muggle way of dealing with problems works out much better! The students can’t perform magic outside of school, but Fred (or was it George, or both?) learn(s) to pick locks the muggle way… (Which is also funny!)
You’ve given me an idea for a blog entry: What do you really learn at Hogwarts?
We only get to peek into the classes a few times. While we know what the kids are taking, we don’t particularl know the curriculum. What we DO know is there are no classes in math, science, literature, writing, or language. This raises the question of how young wizards thrive without this education. For example, how do Fred and George run a business without any training in math?
Did Mrs. Weasley teach them basic math in the first few years of their education (that time frame in which muggle-borns attend public school)?
True. I have also wondered how they deal with the subjects that are so important in the muggle world when, obviously they know next-to-nothing about life outside their own magical world.
They do learn some basic astronomy at Hogwarts though…and arithmancy, (whatever that is.) After that, I suppose they “home-school” their children as you suggest.
This comment has nothing to do with your plot hole…but I’m going to take this opportunity to raise a question about a plot, erm, confusion that occurred to me after watching HP8. (Apologies beforehand if this has already been hashed out!)
If the Elder Wand is unbeatable, how did Dumbledore defeat Grindelwald?
I suppose–coming full circle back to this post–you could argue that Grindelwald had some kind of love left for Dumbledore, preventing him from using the Elder Wand to its full. We don’t really know what went down when those two met at to duel; though it’s intriguing that Dumbledore was able to defeat GW without killing him.
The “leftover love” hypothesis I just invented doesn’t seem strong enough to me to explain Dumbledore’s overcoming of the Elder Wand’s powers. Any ideas?
I think that the idea that the wand is unbeatable is just part of the legend: something that got exaggerated over time. It is the most powerful wand in the world, but not necessarily unbeatable. I think Dumbledore says something to this effect in his commentary in The Tales of Beedle the Bard
The Elder Wand is powerful, but with some spells it seems like the one who casts the spell first is the one who succeeds. Strangely, you don’t hear of too many duels where they both shout “Avada Kedavra!” at once, especially without “warming-up” to it. Harry’s choice of “Expelliarmus” as his “signature” spell, seems to be a great one, but it all depends on who gets the drop on whom… In any case, no one ever survived the killing spell (from any wand) from any determined wizard until Voldemort tried it on baby Harry.
I think the way Albus defeated his friend was also through using “Expelliarmus” and Dumbledore did say he was “slightly more powerful” as a wizard than Gellert, but it may also have been in respect to their former friendship that Gellert didn’t use the disarming spell first.
We do know, however, that even though Ollivander said it was impossible to mend a broken wand, the Elder Wand was powerful enough to mend Harry’s wand.
I’ll add to the statements made by the other two in saying “Unbeatable Wand” is more a title thrust upon the Eldar than an actual characteristic. As was explained by Rowling in an interview (I don’t recall which one), the Elder wand is different from others in that it has been in nearly constant use for centuries and has a Thestral hair for a core. Its age has enabled to wand to use its extensive memory in becoming more powerful than average wands and its core allows it to be far less loyal in its choice of master. Simply being the master of the wand does not guarantee victory in every battle. This was demonstrated in how easily every wizard dating back to Antioch Peverell has lost the wand and how each respective loss was accomplished.
If you require further convincing, then I suggest you reexamine the meaning behind the phrase “Master of Death.” It is ironic that so many witches and wizards should so desperately search for these items they believe will grant imortality to its owner, when the true meaning behind the phrase is in the original story. The “Master of Death” does not seek immortality or the power of necromancy; the “Master of Death” accepts he or she must die and meets death when his or her time has come. Much like the phrase “Master of Death,” the principle of the “Unbeatable Wand” has been grossly and enthusiastically misinterpreted by those who seek such items.
That’s cool to know about the Thestral hair core! The one sad thing I noted about the wands from Ollivanders, was that they were mostly limited to Phoenix feather, Dragon Heartstring, or Unicorn hair cores. I always wanted more variety…
Kind of like “Unsinkable Ship”!
Did I just reveal my history nerd side?
I have a ton of issues with the Elder Wand, actually. I couldn’t formulate them when I first read the series. I just knew something was “off”. I want to finish my re-read before commenting on this to make sure I have my facts straight, but I think we can expect a very lengthy discussion of the Elder Wand in a couple of months.
Thanks for all your thoughts and additional background info. I, too, was interested to learn about the thestral core. It makes me think of how much more there will be to learn in Pottermore!
I have to say that I loved the fact that according to Dumbledore, “no witch has ever claimed to have the Elder Wand. Make of that what you will”. Hm.
Really? When was that? I didn’t think they even knew about the Elder Wand until after Dumbledore died. ???
It’s in his commentary for The Tales of Beedle the Bard
Maybe this is because I have read each book well over ten times, but Fawkes’s tears came to mind right away! I am also really excited to hear about the Thestral core. I just eat all these little details up!
I will admit that even though this is one of my favorite book series, there are a lot of plot holes that could easily be explained away with magic, but aren’t. I don’t think JKR considered some of these, otherwise she would have included an explanation in the books, such as the one mentioned above. Then there’s also one that really bugged me–why doesn’t the magical law enforcement community use veritaserum on possible Death Eaters? Dozens (or hundreds, I forget which) of people were sent to Azkaban without a trial the first time Voldemort was defeated–why would they even need a trial if they were administered the truth potion?
I also think that magic, while it may be used as a crutch at some points, is not always used to explain things it should. For instance, if Alohomora can unlock any door, why do they even have locked doors to begin with? If first years learn the spell at the beginning of their education, then any wandering moron with a wand can unlock a door. This is a plothole that could easily be explained by saying that the spell would only be able to work for certain wands or certain people, but it isn’t.
However, just because JKR doesn’t use magic to cure world hunger doesn’t mean that she’s disinterested in magic. If she’s disinterested in it, why would she have written a book about a wizard? I think that she’s trying to get the point across that magic has limitations. However, she needed to address these directly with examples in the books instead of only relaying the information in interviews. It made her seem as if she was making it up as she came along.
The way the magical law enforcement community works has bothered me as well. Why didn’t they use veritaserum? Why not get a skilled Legilmans to interview the suspects? etc. But I don’t blame Rowling for “failing to get it right” so much as I credit her for creating a very complex world in which stupid wizards don’t think of the obvious answers and a world in which there is such an obvious overload of information that no single witch or wizard could possibly have become proficient in all forms of magic.
Alohamora seems like a simple spell that any moron could have learned, but Hermione actually learned it on her own through her reading and we are never told that the teachers actually taught it to anyone.
It is obvious to me that the story as a whole was indeed complete in Rowling’s head before she began writing — obvious, due to the extreme amount of foreshadowing that has taken place throughout the series.
…and why didn’t they notice that death eaters had special tatoos on their arms?
Good points! I think the downfall of law in a magical society may merit its own entry. There seems to be glaring inconsistancies.
The reason that veritaserum is not widely used is because it is not infallible. Use of Occlumency and it’s antidote will negate it’s effects. Also, JKR has said that it is biased and unreliable in that it only shows the victims perception of reality, not reality itself. Therefore, if someone of Bellatrix Lestrange’s mind were to be questioned with this potion, it would not be accurate as she is clearly insane.
Totally jumping in on a discussion that finished months ago… but anyway… my opinion on the whole “they only use a few spells” idea is on the mega-nerd side of things. I think you could argue they are using magic the way we use language (obviously they use language too). What I mean by that is that we have whole dictionaries full of words that we know, but day to day we use a very limited amount of them. I do not know the actual number but I believe it is something like there are 700 common words used in the English language and most of them are “the”, “and”, “a”, “or”, etc. I think the wizards and witches are probably experiencing something similar. I would guess they do mostly know many more spells than they specifically state, but that in no way means they have stated every spell they know. Right off the bat we have nonverbal spells so there are really an unlimited number of spells people could be doing. Day to day, people use spells for simple things like cooking and cleaning, or homework and learning, or whatever their jobs require. The fact that the story follows a teenager who did not grow up in the magical world also must have an impact on the number of spells we see.