Books that make you dumb
Sirius Kase
done with HP?
http://booksthatmakeyoudumb.virgil.gr/
This is a list of most popular books at quite a few universities
correlated by SAT scores on their student bodies. For those who want
to jump to whats on topic, HP is only slightly above average, but that
is because it is the most widely read book on the list.
This is a "fun" analysis, not a scientific study, so enjoy the results
with a grain of salt. Many of the books were required high school
reading, so that depresses the score for those books - stupid people
who don't otherwise read had read them.
Rubeus Hagrid
> This is a list of most popular books at quite a few universities
> correlated by SAT scores on their student bodies. For those who want
> to jump to whats on topic, HP is only slightly above average, but that
> is because it is the most widely read book on the list.
The HP series also are new, and a lot of people see it as a hype.
Only time will tell if Rowling has written an all-time classic.
And for me: I've always wondered why people went to te same movie 10-20
times in a row. But after I've read all 7 books 3 times in a few months,
I'm beginning to understand. :-)
--
I shouldn’t have said that.
Hagrid
Ron Hunter
couldn't face reading OOTP again, and there is NOT way I will ever read
HBP or DH again.
Thom Madura
The conclusion is wrong - it is not the books that make a person dumb -
it is merely a list of books and their popularity based on the
intelligence of the reader.
It does make a serious error. It fails to separate the books by the age
target of the material.
Rubeus Hagrid
>>
> Until Book 6, I read all the previous books from the beginning, but I
> couldn't face reading OOTP again, and there is NOT way I will ever read
> HBP or DH again.
Can you give your reason for that?
Alex Clark
> Sirius Kase wrote:
> > Also a good answer to the question: What shall I read now that I'm
> > done with HP?
>
> >http://booksthatmakeyoudumb.virgil.gr/
>
> > This is a list of most popular books at quite a few universities
> > correlated by SAT scores on their student bodies. For those who want
> > to jump to whats on topic, HP is only slightly above average, but that
> > is because it is the most widely read book on the list.
>
> > This is a "fun" analysis, not a scientific study, so enjoy the results
> > with a grain of salt. Many of the books were required high school
> > reading, so that depresses the score for those books - stupid people
> > who don't otherwise read had read them.
>
> The conclusion is wrong - it is not the books that make a person dumb -
> it is merely a list of books and their popularity based on the
To be precise, it is not even that. It is based not on the
intelligence of the reader, but only on the SAT score, which only
correlates to a few kinds of intelligence.
I say that knowing that I myself am highly intelligent ( :-/ ) and had
a combined SAT score of 1490. But since I am one individual, I could
be an exception rather than a typical example.
--
Alex Clark
Vroom, drilled a Tom (an anagram rejected by Tom Riddle)
Alun L. Palmer
ab15-9e0...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Not highly meaningful to those educated outside the US either. I live in
the US but have a college degree from another country, hence I have no SAT
score and didn't attend any of the colleges on the list. Our kids haven't
done the SAT yet either.
Sirius Kase
> Alex Clark <alexbcl...@pennswoods.net> wrote in news:71082801-d689-40b5-
> ab15-9e0ab43f5...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
You don't need to know much about the SAT to understand that the test
score is used as an admissions criteria to many American Universities
(and hundreds of others all over the world) and that more selective
schools tend to have higher scores.
Alun L. Palmer
news:ce0daaec-a5d0-470a...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Of course, but I have no way of knowing what my SAT score would have been
if I had one. If, OTOH, it had been done based on IQ I would know where I
was on the scale. You may have some idea of what kind of correlation there
might be between the two numbers, but I don't.
Bill Blakely
wrote:
I made myself read HBP a second time but it was excruciating. Leaving
aside the endless camping trip, I didn't find DH hard to re-read, but
I did find it even more disappointing the second time around since I
had just re-read the first five books, which made the decline in
quality in the last two books even more painfully apparent.
-----------------------------------------------
George W. Bush: Billions for Halliburton but not one cent for children's health care or veterans' benefits.
Welsh Dog
<wcbl...@hughesnet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:23:54 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>>Rubeus Hagrid wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:09:08 -0800 (PST) wrote Sirius Kase:
>>>> This is a list of most popular books at quite a few universities
>>>> correlated by SAT scores on their student bodies. For those who want
>>>> to jump to whats on topic, HP is only slightly above average, but that
>>>> is because it is the most widely read book on the list.
>>> The HP series also are new, and a lot of people see it as a hype.
>>> Only time will tell if Rowling has written an all-time classic.
>>> And for me: I've always wondered why people went to te same movie 10-20
>>> times in a row. But after I've read all 7 books 3 times in a few months,
>>> I'm beginning to understand. :-)
>>Until Book 6, I read all the previous books from the beginning, but I
>>couldn't face reading OOTP again, and there is NOT way I will ever read
>>HBP or DH again.
>I made myself read HBP a second time but it was excruciating. Leaving
>aside the endless camping trip, I didn't find DH hard to re-read, but
>I did find it even more disappointing the second time around since I
>had just re-read the first five books, which made the decline in
>quality in the last two books even more painfully apparent.
That the stories changed in their structure as the series progressed
is quite obvious, however the *reason* for that change is equally
obvious. It would have been at the insistence of the publishers who
to be fair would have had no idea whatsoever what they had in their
hands when holding PS/SS.
Were they aware of the cultural phenomenon that was about to explode
onto the literary scene they might have been a little more circumspect
in the presentation and scope of the first books and allowed it more
breadth. As it was, each story was perforce obliged to arrive as a
'standalone'. It wasn't until GOF that what was happening 'out there'
really became clear and JKR was give full rein to let the story flow
in the way she'd wanted. She made it clear in an early interview that
she conceived the story as a 'whole' and for the purposes of
publication she'd been forced to cut huge chunks out of the
development in order to present each stage as virtually separate
entities.
The result was that the information regarding the backstories that
*should* have been developing in the earlier books now had to be
crammed into the last three.
As a very real consequence it might help if you stopped looking at the
final three books as individual tales and view them as one work in
three parts, many of your complaints may be resolved.
I've taken to viewing the series as the first four books equivalent to
the Hobbit, and the last three as Lord of the Rings. All we need now
is a Silmarillion equivalent (and some feedback on where the Dursleys
went) and we're sorted! :D
As I've said previously, I've re-read these books many times and
enjoyed them immensely each time. But from your perspective you might
find it most odd that it is the latter three that I've read most
often... and of those DH is my clear favourite. The descriptive
writing of the sheer frustration and boredom of the camping scenes was
so real it was almost palpable... and those final battle scenes are,
in my view, quite exceptionally well written.
Welshdog
--
Australian Opinion http://australianopinion.com
News and views... for people like youse!!
santosh
Interesting take. The difference of course is that LotR is almost
universally considered as an improvement over The Hobbit, but with
Harry Potter obviously, the reverse is the case. At least IMO. I found
the first four much better than the last three. To be fair though OotP
and DH are quite good (though no comparison with GoF and PoA), but HBP
sadly, feels almost ghostwritten.
> As I've said previously, I've re-read these books many times and
> enjoyed them immensely each time. But from your perspective you might
> find it most odd that it is the latter three that I've read most
> often... and of those DH is my clear favourite. The descriptive
> writing of the sheer frustration and boredom of the camping scenes was
> so real it was almost palpable... and those final battle scenes are,
> in my view, quite exceptionally well written.
Are you saying that the final battle in the Great Hall was exceptionally
well written? Incredible, though I suppose each to his own.
Toon
wrote:
>Interesting take. The difference of course is that LotR is almost
>universally considered as an improvement over The Hobbit, but with
>Harry Potter obviously, the reverse is the case. At least IMO. I found
>the first four much better than the last three. To be fair though OotP
>and DH are quite good (though no comparison with GoF and PoA), but HBP
>sadly, feels almost ghostwritten.
Well, HBP had no real plot. Harry takes a journey to learn about his
enemies' thought process, and learn why he became a super villain.
Blah Blah Blah. Thne DD dies, while leaving Harry an impossible task
he's barely suited for. Clearly the DE invasion was the setup for DH.
DaveD
"santosh" <santo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g38h8j$ljv$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> Welsh Dog wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:41:15 -0400, Bill Blakely
>> <wcbl...@hughesnet.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:23:54 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net>
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:09:08 -0800 (PST) wrote Sirius Kase:
>> That the stories changed in their structure as the series progressed
>> is quite obvious, however the *reason* for that change is equally
>> obvious. It would have been at the insistence of the publishers who
>> to be fair would have had no idea whatsoever what they had in their
>> hands when holding PS/SS.
>>
>> Were they aware of the cultural phenomenon that was about to explode
>> onto the literary scene they might have been a little more circumspect
>> in the presentation and scope of the first books and allowed it more
>> breadth. As it was, each story was perforce obliged to arrive as a
>> 'standalone'. It wasn't until GOF that what was happening 'out there'
>> really became clear and JKR was give full rein to let the story flow
>> in the way she'd wanted. She made it clear in an early interview that
>> she conceived the story as a 'whole' and for the purposes of
>> publication she'd been forced to cut huge chunks out of the
>> development in order to present each stage as virtually separate
>> entities.
>>
>> The result was that the information regarding the backstories that
>> *should* have been developing in the earlier books now had to be
>> crammed into the last three.
I hadn't seen that interview - interesting, though apart from some things
only appearing in DH and not being trailed earlier, it doesn't seem *that*
obvious to me. The pacing and introduction of new ideas seems about right to
me.
>> As a very real consequence it might help if you stopped looking at the
>> final three books as individual tales and view them as one work in
>> three parts, many of your complaints may be resolved.
>>
>> I've taken to viewing the series as the first four books equivalent to
>> the Hobbit, and the last three as Lord of the Rings. All we need now
>> is a Silmarillion equivalent (and some feedback on where the Dursleys
>> went) and we're sorted! :D
>
> Interesting take. The difference of course is that LotR is almost
> universally considered as an improvement over The Hobbit, but with
> Harry Potter obviously, the reverse is the case. At least IMO. I found
> the first four much better than the last three. To be fair though OotP
> and DH are quite good (though no comparison with GoF and PoA), but HBP
> sadly, feels almost ghostwritten.
Indeed - now I think about it, there does seem to be a parallel there. And
presumably the Scottish book will be the Silmarillion - though hopefully a
lot more fun and readable!
>> As I've said previously, I've re-read these books many times and
>> enjoyed them immensely each time. But from your perspective you might
>> find it most odd that it is the latter three that I've read most
>> often... and of those DH is my clear favourite. The descriptive
>> writing of the sheer frustration and boredom of the camping scenes was
>> so real it was almost palpable... and those final battle scenes are,
>> in my view, quite exceptionally well written.
Exactly! She actually manages to make the boredom real, and interesting in a
curious way!
> Are you saying that the final battle in the Great Hall was exceptionally
> well written? Incredible, though I suppose each to his own.
Yes, I thought so. She captured the bleakness and fear, the fact hope seemed
to have disappeared, the terrifying seat-of-the-pants planning, and Harry's
courage. The only problems to me were it did get slightly confusing
occasionally, and of course, all the gratuitous deaths. I can see how some
were necessary but she could have increased that dramatic tension a bit
more, and helped with the emotional shock: it was a bit
wham-bam-thankyoumam, no time to dwell on any of it. I know she doesn't want
to be mawkish but a bit of emotion there would have improved the scenes a
lot. Perhaps she finds it too painful to write?
DaveD
Toon
<dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Yes, I thought so. She captured the bleakness and fear, the fact hope seemed
>to have disappeared, the terrifying seat-of-the-pants planning, and Harry's
>courage. The only problems to me were it did get slightly confusing
>occasionally, and of course, all the gratuitous deaths. I can see how some
>were necessary but she could have increased that dramatic tension a bit
>more, and helped with the emotional shock: it was a bit
>wham-bam-thankyoumam, no time to dwell on any of it. I know she doesn't want
>to be mawkish but a bit of emotion there would have improved the scenes a
>lot. Perhaps she finds it too painful to write?
>
>DaveD
Basically we got an, Oh, these people died, and then a list. No
impact. It's like, oh gee, so and so died. Bummer. I felt nothing
for the Lupins because it was barely a footnote. Sure I wanted them
to live, but it's not like, No, they were killed. More like, they
were killed? I wondered for a sec if someone was mistaken and they
were still alive.
I still say she rushed DH just to get it over with. Too many years of
secrets and non hints and people bugging her about what happens next.
And as many authors admit, too many rewrites and editing of their book
makes them wish their characters would all die. Now imagine that, for
7 books.
Bill Blakely
>On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:12:04 +0100, "DaveD"
><dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Yes, I thought so. She captured the bleakness and fear, the fact hope seemed
>>to have disappeared, the terrifying seat-of-the-pants planning, and Harry's
>>courage. The only problems to me were it did get slightly confusing
>>occasionally, and of course, all the gratuitous deaths. I can see how some
>>were necessary but she could have increased that dramatic tension a bit
>>more, and helped with the emotional shock: it was a bit
>>wham-bam-thankyoumam, no time to dwell on any of it. I know she doesn't want
>>to be mawkish but a bit of emotion there would have improved the scenes a
>>lot. Perhaps she finds it too painful to write?
>>
>>DaveD
>
>Basically we got an, Oh, these people died, and then a list. No
>impact. It's like, oh gee, so and so died. Bummer. I felt nothing
>for the Lupins because it was barely a footnote. Sure I wanted them
>to live, but it's not like, No, they were killed. More like, they
>were killed? I wondered for a sec if someone was mistaken and they
>were still alive.
As W.H. Auden put it, "Not that they die but that they die like
sheep."
It's a literary crime the way JKR created so many wonderful characters
and then neglected and squandered them in later books.
>I still say she rushed DH just to get it over with. Too many years of
>secrets and non hints and people bugging her about what happens next.
>And as many authors admit, too many rewrites and editing of their book
>makes them wish their characters would all die. Now imagine that, for
>7 books.
DH feels rushed to me too, but I suspect once the HP craze really
took off, which is to say after PoA, she was too big for serious
editing and rewrites (aside from the famous GF rewrite forced on her
by an enormous plot-hole) and that's was part of the problem. All the
books after PoA -- the good and the bad -- show evidence of having
needed the services of a good editor.
Bill Blakely
<wcbl...@hughesnet.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 07:26:51 -0700, Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:12:04 +0100, "DaveD"
>><dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, I thought so. She captured the bleakness and fear, the fact hope seemed
>>>to have disappeared, the terrifying seat-of-the-pants planning, and Harry's
>>>courage. The only problems to me were it did get slightly confusing
>>>occasionally, and of course, all the gratuitous deaths. I can see how some
>>>were necessary but she could have increased that dramatic tension a bit
>>>more, and helped with the emotional shock: it was a bit
>>>wham-bam-thankyoumam, no time to dwell on any of it. I know she doesn't want
>>>to be mawkish but a bit of emotion there would have improved the scenes a
>>>lot. Perhaps she finds it too painful to write?
>>>
>>>DaveD
>>
>>Basically we got an, Oh, these people died, and then a list. No
>>impact. It's like, oh gee, so and so died. Bummer. I felt nothing
>>for the Lupins because it was barely a footnote. Sure I wanted them
>>to live, but it's not like, No, they were killed. More like, they
>>were killed? I wondered for a sec if someone was mistaken and they
>>were still alive.
>
>As W.H. Auden put it, "Not that they die but that they die like
>sheep."
Not W.H. Auden but Vachel Lindsay!!
As so often happens, I knew that was wrong as soon as I hit the "Send
Message Now" button, and by replying my own post to correct it I have
deprived someone of an official Usenet Gottcha!! LOL Which I suspect
is where the "rule" about not replying to your own posts came from.
DaveD
"Bill Blakely" <wcbl...@hughesnet.com> wrote in message
news:ba9t54lujfhid31fp...@4ax.com...
What enormous plot-hole in GoF??? The only one I know of was Lily and James
emerging in the wrong order from the wand in the cemetery scene, and that
was just a mistake rather than a plot-hole.
DaveD
Bill Blakely
The rewrite occurred prior to publication. I don't know if she's ever
discussed the nature of it in detail, but she has talked about how she
had to substantially rewrite a good part of GF because she discovered
a large and glaring plot hole, and about what a strain it was on her
to do that and still meet the intended publication date.
DaveD
That's frustrating - now I know there was a plothole in the first version of
GoF, I wanna know what it was, lol.
And I can't really see how it would fit into the encyclopaedia as it's
something that didn't happen in the books as it was - by definition -
written out!
DaveD
richard e white
Then you can anser why the fake mad eye waited so long to spiret harry away?
--
Richard The Blind Typer.
Lets hear it for talking computers.
Lets go for talking i-pods!
santosh
> DaveD wrote:
<snip>
>> What enormous plot-hole in GoF??? The only one I know of was Lily and
>> James emerging in the wrong order from the wand in the cemetery
>> scene, and that was just a mistake rather than a plot-hole.
> Then you can anser why the fake mad eye waited so long to spiret harry
> away?
Perhaps because the "regenerating" potion required time to prepare?
That's the only rational reason that I can think of.
Chip Stobb
wrote:
Good point. As many potions require fairly long periods of time to
stew, that would have meant that Barty Crouch Jr. had plenty of time
to prepare for getting Harry to Voldy's re-birthday party.
Also, Rowling did make it blatantly obvious that the Dark Mark tattoos
on the Death Eaters' left forearms were getting darker as time passed
(as Karkaroff loudly mentioned to Snape). That could indicate that
Voldy was getting stronger under Wormtail's care and he had to be at a
minimal level of strength before he would be able to be 're-born' into
a new body.
And also, since Harry was within the Hogwarts grounds one would think
that he was covered by the protective enchantments that the castle
provided. The Triwizard Cup being made into a portkey that got around
all of the Hogwarts protections was a plot device that suited Rowling
quite well at that point in time.
I'm also fairly sure that after the Dark Mark's appearing at the World
Cup, Dumbledore would have added a few of his own protective spells &
enchantments for Harry's protection which would have made it even that
much more difficult to get to him while he was at Hogwarts - but that
is purely an assumption on my part.
- Chip
"Ignorance is bliss, and we're in Nirvana." - C. Stobb
DaveD
"Chip Stobb" <stob...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:jqtk84ltuojup748k...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:05:49 +0530, santosh <santo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>richard e white wrote:
>>> DaveD wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>> What enormous plot-hole in GoF??? The only one I know of was Lily and
>>>> James emerging in the wrong order from the wand in the cemetery
>>>> scene, and that was just a mistake rather than a plot-hole.
>>
>>> Then you can anser why the fake mad eye waited so long to spiret harry
>>> away?
>>
>>Perhaps because the "regenerating" potion required time to prepare?
>>That's the only rational reason that I can think of.
>
> Good point. As many potions require fairly long periods of time to
> stew, that would have meant that Barty Crouch Jr. had plenty of time
> to prepare for getting Harry to Voldy's re-birthday party.
>
> Also, Rowling did make it blatantly obvious that the Dark Mark tattoos
> on the Death Eaters' left forearms were getting darker as time passed
> (as Karkaroff loudly mentioned to Snape). That could indicate that
> Voldy was getting stronger under Wormtail's care and he had to be at a
> minimal level of strength before he would be able to be 're-born' into
> a new body.
Thanks for that, both good points, though there's nothing I can think of in
the book to support the potion taking a long time to stew, or that Voldy was
too weak earlier on (he still managed to AK the gardener!)
> And also, since Harry was within the Hogwarts grounds one would think
> that he was covered by the protective enchantments that the castle
> provided. The Triwizard Cup being made into a portkey that got around
> all of the Hogwarts protections was a plot device that suited Rowling
> quite well at that point in time.
>
> I'm also fairly sure that after the Dark Mark's appearing at the World
> Cup, Dumbledore would have added a few of his own protective spells &
> enchantments for Harry's protection which would have made it even that
> much more difficult to get to him while he was at Hogwarts - but that
> is purely an assumption on my part.
>
> - Chip
I have to say, I didn't think the long time that it took for Crouch-MadEye
to spirit Harry away was so much a plothole as a massive structural failing
of the book.
If all it needed was a portkey to get Harry away, why wait till the end of
the year, why not just leave one in his office next time Harry came in or
somewhere Harry would find it? I'm sure Crouch-MadEye could easily have
managed that if he'd wanted to, so to maintain the plot's logical integrity,
there needed to be a clear reason why he couldn't use a portkey earlier, but
I couldn't see one.
Although I enjoyed the book, that long delay weakened it too much for me.
Obviously he had to take a long time or else it would have been a very short
book, lol. But the lack of a good reason for not using a portkey earlier
stretched (my) credibility beyond breaking point, which was a shame as
otherwise GoF would have been one of the best in the series; instead it felt
like a book that started off with great potential but was in the end fatally
flawed...
And that still hasn't answered my question about what was the original
plothole that caused JKR to rewrite the book to remove it?!
DaveD
richard e white
I can think of dozens. In fact I always thought that it had something to do
with dropping a spell to let portkeys come in from other areas. You know so
the parents of the foren wizards parents could come. The problem is that
without an anser as to why it is a plot hole. We don't know why and that
story needs it to stand.
richard e white
But that plot devise could of been used at any time. The hole is that it
isn't ansered. Though I will admit I think she did anser it and then
accadently remove it during a rewrite. I rather expected to find the reason
during V's monolog in the graveyard. And as my guess would put the anser at
one or two paragrafs I rather think it was easy to remove without realizing
it.
This is one of the reasons I wish she had a better editor. It would have
been easy to correct.
richard e white
I agree. And that is the main problem with this book to me. However I don't
think it is a massive failuing. I think she deleated the wrong paragraf during
a rewrite of V's graveyard monolog. I think they dropped some sort of
protection spell to bring in theparents of flur and crum. Bertha would have
known this and V would have learned it from her. I expected this so much that
when this book first came out I went back over that sean twice because it was
the logical spot for this to have been ansered.
>
>
> Although I enjoyed the book, that long delay weakened it too much for me.
> Obviously he had to take a long time or else it would have been a very short
> book, lol. But the lack of a good reason for not using a portkey earlier
> stretched (my) credibility beyond breaking point, which was a shame as
> otherwise GoF would have been one of the best in the series; instead it felt
> like a book that started off with great potential but was in the end fatally
> flawed...
>
Yes. It was and still is one the more intresting books. However it could have
been better if the editor had noted the problem.
>
> And that still hasn't answered my question about what was the original
> plothole that caused JKR to rewrite the book to remove it?!
>
> DaveD
I can't anser that as the only rewrite I know of was the wand order. But then I
don't get all the interviews sent to me.
DaveD
"richard e white" <chip...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:48941B29...@cox.net...
Actually, do we know that foreign wizards definitely used portkeys to travel
to the Quidditch World Cup? If so, that causes a plot hole in DH, where
Voldy has to take his time getting back from Albania, if he could have just
used a portkey to do it instantaneously instead? Though that would be a
little less dramatic than flying across Europe - especially for the film! I
just hope they don't spend get too self-indulgent and 10 minutes showing
it...
DaveD
Toon
Would you port key around if you could fly?
DaveD
"Toon" <to...@toon.com> wrote in message
news:qvbb9410kk464rvha...@4ax.com...
Yes if I was in that much of a hurry and the portkey was instantaneous (I
assume it is but no-one's ever actually said!) - sod the view and the
tourist or flying experience, I need to get somewhere FAST, I'll definitely
portkey! Save the flying for nice days (he said, looking out of the window
at the constant rain - ah, another lovely British summer...)
DaveD
richard e white
Yes. Check out where harry and the others are told to get out of the way for
the next incoming group of wizards. The next group was foren. Also Ron's dad
mentions the aranging of port keys all over eroup if I remember right.
> If so, that causes a plot hole in DH, where
> Voldy has to take his time getting back from Albania, if he could have just
> used a portkey to do it instantaneously instead?
Not a problem. Portkeys can be traced. V wanted to keep a low profile. so he
wouldn't set one up to cross many areas of magical control.
This detiction is mentioned by lupin when they move harry to number twelve at
the front end of book five. This might also have something to do with the
timeing of the portkey that stole harry near the end. If the mom was expecting
a port key they wouldn't instantly go looking for where it went. However as
long as we don't have an anser we don't know why and it stays a hole.
> Though that would be a
> little less dramatic than flying across Europe - especially for the film! I
> just hope they don't spend get too self-indulgent and 10 minutes showing
> it...
>
> DaveD
richard e white
As I am blind a port key would be safer. At least until I got an eye like mad
eyes. Then it would depend on how fast I needed to get some where.
Welsh Dog
wrote:
>DaveD wrote:
>> "richard e white" <chip...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:48941B29...@cox.net...
>> > santosh wrote:
>> >> richard e white wrote:
>> >> > DaveD wrote:
<snip>
>> > I can think of dozens. In fact I always thought that it had something to
>> > do with dropping a spell to let portkeys come in from other areas.
>> > You know so the parents of the foren wizards parents could come.
>> > The problem is that without an anser as to why it is a plot hole. We
>> > don't know why and that story needs it to stand.
>> Actually, do we know that foreign wizards definitely used portkeys to travel
>> to the Quidditch World Cup?
>Yes. Check out where harry and the others are told to get out of the way for
>the next incoming group of wizards. The next group was foren. Also Ron's dad
>mentions the aranging of port keys all over eroup if I remember right.
>> If so, that causes a plot hole in DH, where
>> Voldy has to take his time getting back from Albania, if he could have just
>> used a portkey to do it instantaneously instead?
>Not a problem. Portkeys can be traced. V wanted to keep a low profile. so he
>wouldn't set one up to cross many areas of magical control.
Portkeys can be traced... but when Voldemort was thrashing across
Europe to get back to Hoggy, Hoggy Hogwarts... he was all bar Minister
of Magic and there was nobody who really cared who was going where...
other than himself!!
There was no reason at all why he didn't just 'think the destination',
point his wand at a rock, shout 'porteus', grab the rock and land
wherever he wanted!!
>This detection is mentioned by lupin when they move harry to number twelve at
>the front end of book five. This might also have something to do with the
>timeing of the portkey that stole harry near the end. If the mom was expecting
>a port key they wouldn't instantly go looking for where it went. However as
>long as we don't have an anser we don't know why and it stays a hole.
I'll accept that in GoF you have to ask why if those things can be
traced, the MoM didn't try to find out where Harry went and
investigate the area??
Maybe some evidence of magical activity would still be there!
And if they were convinced Voldemort *hadn't* come back... why wasn't
Harry on trial for murder??
>> Though that would be a
>> little less dramatic than flying across Europe - especially for the film! I
>> just hope they don't spend get too self-indulgent and 10 minutes showing
>> it...
Welshdog
--
News and views... for people like youse!!
Australian Opinion
(http://australianopinion.com)
Not as strange as it looks!
Toon
wrote:
>There was no reason at all why he didn't just 'think the destination',
>point his wand at a rock, shout 'porteus', grab the rock and land
>wherever he wanted!!
Harry didn't seem to enjoy the journey much. Perhaps Voldie hated it
too.
>I'll accept that in GoF you have to ask why if those things can be
>traced, the MoM didn't try to find out where Harry went and
>investigate the area??
Maybe they only recently learned how to trace them, after it was
confirmed Harry was abducted by one.
>And if they were convinced Voldemort *hadn't* come back... why wasn't
>Harry on trial for murder??
Who said he did it? They were in a tournament known to kill. Harry
witnesses Cedric's death, is too ashamed to admit he froze and didn't
help, so he concocts a story of Voldemort's return, so the death is
written of, and Harry is beloved again as everybody remembers his last
V encounter. Then the sympathy pours in. Much more urgent is DD's
quest for power via Harry's explanation of events.
DaveD
I'd have thought accusing Harry would have been the first thing Fudge would
do - much better to try and take him out directly by accusing him of murder
than the constant sniping instead. Harry arrives back from the maze with a
dead body, no-one else around, no claw marks or signs of trauma on the body
that would have been present if Cedric had been killed by a creature in the
maze, so pretty good circumstantial evidence it was an AK and they didn't
know of anyone else being in the vicinity who could have done it apart from
Harry. The only reason against that I can think of is that if they cast a
/prior incantatem/ on Harry's wand, it wouldn't produce an AK as he hadn't
cast one.
DaveD
Toon
I doubt Fudge would, as Harry was still quite popular. He then began
eroding that popularity bit with the endless Voldemrot's Back going
on.
DaveD
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 21:11:09 +0100, "DaveD"
> <dav...@DELETETHISBITgmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Toon" <to...@toon.com> wrote in message
>>news:5r8tb4h5eia7rquf9...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:57:58 +1000, Welsh Dog <wels...@gmail.com>
Hmm, that's probably where I go wrong so often - I spot something that I
think needs doing and rush straight in, instead of a pursuing a
softly-softly approach to undermine something drip by drip lol.
I guess that's why Fudge was Minister for (of?) Magic and I'm not! Well,
that and the fact it's fiction :)
DaveD
Louis Epstein
:
:> richard e white wrote:
:> > DaveD wrote:
:>
:> <snip>
:>
:> >> What enormous plot-hole in GoF??? The only one I know of was Lily and
:> >> James emerging in the wrong order from the wand in the cemetery
:> >> scene, and that was just a mistake rather than a plot-hole.
:>
:> > Then you can anser why the fake mad eye waited so long to spiret harry
:> > away?
:>
:> Perhaps because the "regenerating" potion required time to prepare?
:> That's the only rational reason that I can think of.
:
: I can think of dozens. In fact I always thought that it had something to do
: with dropping a spell to let portkeys come in from other areas. You know so
: the parents of the foren wizards parents could come. The problem is that
: without an anser as to why it is a plot hole. We don't know why and that
: story needs it to stand.
Why wouldn't the foreign wizards' parents travel conventionally to just
outside the Hogwarts protections for the scheduled Triwizard finale?
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein
: On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 17:46:22 +0100, "DaveD"
: <dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
:
:>
:>"richard e white" <chip...@cox.net> wrote in message
:>news:48941B29...@cox.net...
:>> santosh wrote:
:>>
:>>> richard e white wrote:
:>>> > DaveD wrote:
:>>>
:>>> <snip>
:>>>
:>>> >> What enormous plot-hole in GoF??? The only one I know of was Lily and
:>>> >> James emerging in the wrong order from the wand in the cemetery
:>>> >> scene, and that was just a mistake rather than a plot-hole.
:>>>
:>>> > Then you can anser why the fake mad eye waited so long to spiret harry
:>>> > away?
:>>>
:>>> Perhaps because the "regenerating" potion required time to prepare?
:>>> That's the only rational reason that I can think of.
:>>
:>> I can think of dozens. In fact I always thought that it had something
:>> to do with dropping a spell to let portkeys come in from other areas.
:>> You know so the parents of the foren wizards parents could come. The
:>> problem is that without an anser as to why it is a plot hole. We don't
:>> know why and that story needs it to stand.
:>> Richard The Blind Typer.
:>
:>
:>Actually, do we know that foreign wizards definitely used portkeys to travel
:>Voldy has to take his time getting back from Albania, if he could have just
:>used a portkey to do it instantaneously instead? Though that would be a
:>little less dramatic than flying across Europe - especially for the film! I
:>just hope they don't spend get too self-indulgent and 10 minutes showing
:>it...
:>
:>DaveD
:
: Would you port key around if you could fly?
Who would fly anywhere they could Apparate?
Chiphead
"Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
news:lNCdnRjkRdo2jX7V...@velocitywest.net...
Yes. Just after harry and the rest ported into the world cup area they were
told to get out of the way before a group from the blackforest ported in.
However, V's coming back slowly under the rader still works. Remember port
keys can be traced. Lupin gave that as the anser for why they didn't use
one to get harry to number twelve grimold place. V was trying not to be
found at that point. And the tracking would take time so V didn't care
about it at the end when he had harry. The question is why did they play
around with harry in the turnament when the fake mad eye could get him much
easyer. That is the part that isn't explained for somereason. I still
wounder why no one has asked her that in an interview.
> :>
> :>DaveD
> :
> : Would you port key around if you could fly?
>
> Who would fly anywhere they could Apparate?
>
> -=-=-
I think it would depend on time and conferet. Apperating had some draw
backs. However as I'm blind the apperation may be a problem the way JKR
described it. I would stick to the fluw net until I made an eye like mad
eyes or bought one.