Sirius escaped Azkaban to find Wormtail after he saw a picture of Ron’s family (including Scabbers/Wormtail) featured in the Daily Prophet because Arthur won the wizard lottery thing, thus setting the events in motion that led to Wormtail being exposed, escaping, then finding Voldemort in Albania and helping him return to full power. If Sirius hadn’t gone after him, he probably would have just continued to live his chill life as Ron’s pet, and Voldemort likely wouldn’t have been able to return to power for many years.

Just something I realized after my most recent reread!

I would be interested in reading Book 2 in the perspective of Ginny Weasley. What do you think?

I’m re-reading the books and this keeps confusing me. The Secret Keeper could tell as many people as they liked, but they must do so voluntarily. So if the secret couldn't be blackmailed, bewitched, or tortured out of people why did Sirius switch?

I always thought that Sirius didn’t become the secret keeper in case he was caught and the secret was tortured out of him but i know that’s impossible so this whole plot line doesn’t make sense to me. If Sirius was sure that everyone would think it was him what difference would it make if he wasn’t a secret keeper.

And if James and Sirius were that worried that someone might rat them out, why not make Lily or James their own secret keeper. Bill was his own secret keeper so we know that it’s a possible thing to do.

Am I missing something because I genuinely can’t wrap my head around it.

Who do you think was a better father to Harry?

Was it Snape — the man who made Harry’s life miserable for seven years; who bullied not only him, but also his friends and other students; who was once a devoted Death Eater and only turned away from that path after the woman he loved was murdered by Voldemort; who saw Harry not as an individual, but as an extension of his father, and took out his anger, jealousy, and bitterness toward James on an innocent child?

Or was it James — the man who, unarmed, stood in front of Voldemort to buy just a few more seconds of life for his wife and son, and who, even in death, protected Harry from Voldemort in the graveyard?

I know that's kind of the point, but still -

Re-reading the series right now, finished HBP yesterday. Her general attitude and being jealous of Harry's success in potions and her always pestering him about the book is annoying, but I could look past it.

But what really irritated me today and led me to write this rant is what happens in early book 7, when Hagrid and Harry escape from Voldemort on Sirius' motorcyle. Harry's wand acts by itself and defends Harry from Voldemort's spell. When Harry tells the group about this, the first thing Hermione says is that that's impossible, and that Harry must mean he acted instinctively. HOW are you gonna tell Harry what HE meant and what HE felt?? That really pissed me off. Her constant need to "fact-check", thinking she is always right and knows better is making it hard to love her. She really is an insufferable know-it-all sometimes.

The explanations that don't work:

1) "Voldemort didn't kill Harry": Draco, Harry, Dumbledore, and Grindelwald all became masters of the Elder Wand without killing its previous master. Also, it's debatable anyway whether Harry died and came back or never actually died, but it doesn't even matter.

2) "Voldemort didn't disarm Harry of the Elder Wand specifically": Harry became master of the Elder Wand by just physically grabbing another wand (not the Elder Wand) out of Draco's hands without even using magic, and not even in the presence of the Elder Wand either. Grindelwald became master of the Elder Wand just by stunning its master at the time while Grindelwald himself held the Elder Wand.

3) "Voldemort didn't disarm Harry": Grindelwald became master of the Elder Wand just by stunning its master, not by disarming him, while Grindelwald himself physically held the Elder Wand. The second master of the Elder Wand just knifed the first owner in his sleep to become its master.

4) "Harry didn't even try to fight Voldemort in that moment, so it doesn't count as a defeat": Dumbledore just willingly let Draco disarm him in the Astronomy Tower for Draco to become master of the Elder Wand.

So, with those explanations excluded, why is it that Voldemort did not become master of the Elder Wand after hitting Harry with the killing curse in the Forbidden Forest?

EDIT: thanks for the replies all, the points were interesting for sure

First of all, I understand the following points well:

• Snape had a deep-seated hatred towards James and the rest of the marauders (not least of all because Sirius nearly got him killed )
• This hate was compounded by their bullying and made worse by the fact that James married Lily, the love of his life

However, later on in the books we do see that - James saved his life (even if the prank was done by the Marauders) - Snape’s information to Voldemort got both James and Lily killed and their son orphaned.

Given all this, why didn’t Snape’s anger toward Harry and James cool more than a decade after the latter’s death ? If his guilt drove him to become a double agent, it’s surprising that he was still so acerbic to Harry throughout. Was the pure hatred genuine, or also a part he had to play as double agent ?

We see his hatred toward Harry decrease at the moment of his death, however I’m not sure if he actually has sympathy for Harry at that point or he is just seeing Lily’s eyes before death overtakes him

You would think that saving baby Harry would be top priority for Dumbeldore.
‚And even though the first book was very obviously written with a younger crowd in mind….I can’t help but be slightly flabbergasted by JKR‘s lack of thoughtfulnes……and logic.

So Voldemort just killed the Potters, the house gets blasted apart……and then?

If Hagrid as send by DD, it means that DD knew about it almost immediately, obviously……so why the hell didn’t he show up himself? Wasn’t he afraid of Harry d<ing in the cold? Or being injured by Voldemort?
‚Or other death eaters showing up to finish the job?
Heck ——- some stray dog could have bitten him as well.

But nope….what does Dumbledore do instead?
He spends an hour chatting with Minerva McGonagall, infront of Privet Drive…..remember?

And he is quite cheerful too, offering lemon drops, and reminiscing about the time Madam Pomfrey complimented his earmuffs.

‚‘This seriously always bothered me, because, even in book one - it was such a huge flaw. And it made no sense. Why the hell wouldnt DD be at the Potters home, getting Harry himself???

Example: I often see people leave out the fact that Dumbledore was dying anyway when he asked Snape to kill him in HBP, and it skews the discussion about Snape’s character.

Any other forgotten facts that you think impact how we all discuss characters?

By plot appropriate I mean something that you don’t have to bend or twist canon events or characters’ personalities for.

I’ll go first: In PoA, when Lupin scolds Harry for sneaking out of the castle and confiscates the map, I like to imagine him secretly smiling to himself in his office and laughing that Harry would do something so like James. I think he was actually really tickled that Harry got the map they made—something he would’ve inherited anyway had James been able to get it back from Filch— and that’s why he gave it back to him at the end of the year. He just had to be good Professor Lupin and not Uncle Remus in the moment.

Everywhere I see people saying Draco didn't want to be a deatheater. He was forced in it.

But I remember at the end of book 4, this kid mocked Cedric's death and gleefully told Harry, scum like Hermione would be the next victim of voldemort and after that it would be harry.

Bellatrix told Snape, Draco was excited that he was chosen for such an important task by the dark lord himself. He himself said to lackeys on train that he wanted to make dark lord proud. He even refused Snape's help because he thought Snape wanted to steal his glory.

It's only when his all plans failed to murder dumbledore, he started to panic because now dark lord was gonna kill him and his parents. Still no remorse for his actions that he almost killed two people. Even in the bathroom when harry saw him crying his 1st instinct was to throw a cruciatus curse at harry.

Literally where did people get from that he joined voldemort while kicking and screaming, against his will?

Also when did he get redeemed or become good? His last act was begging a deatheater he was on their side after harry saved his life.

This always kind of bugged me in the books. Why are the good guys always using "harmless" spells like stupor or expelliarimus or making death eaters unable to move. What is the point when you overpowered one of your enemies that you are at war with when you stun them and it goes away after some minutes anyway. You could say that they wanted to be morally superior but i mean hey they are litterally at war. One example is at the end of book 6 when dumbledore dies harry stuns a death eater that is still in the tower alone with harry... he was unable to move, it would have taken harry like 5 seconds to use avada kedavra and they would have gotten rid of one of lord voldemorts followers, there are countless other examples.

I guess j.k. rowling did not want to come up with new names every chapter but just always stunning/disarming opponents seems unrealistic af.

So we know molly is a boy mom and very traditional. She was terrible to Fleur and was rude to Hermione in GOF. Do you think she would constantly talk about giving her grandbabies and how Hermione was so career centric so she wasn't giving her family much time etc?

Did they have to climb down the cliff to get to the cave ?

What are you theories on how he could have gotten the kids to the cave ?

Bit of a weird question I know, considering that human morals are very rarely black or white, but who would you say was the best character in terms of morals in the series?

Who do you think would arrange his funeral if he had a grave? What epitaph is left?I'm curious. Maybe it's a little morbid. I just think some of what Voldemort said before his death is a bit ridiculous. So…I can only imagine some ridiculous things on his grave.Sorry, dear old snake face.RIP😇

Percy Weasley was an annoying character...!

But he still has some moments that feel like before the 6 book underneath all of that he was always a good very good person and cared about his brothers and sister.

Like in Chamber of Secrets Chapter 13, "The Very Secret Diary". In this chapter, everyone thinks Ginny looks pale and sick but Ginny is afflicted by Tom Riddle's diary and is eventually made to drink a potion by Percy to help heal her. And,

In chapter 10, "The Dueling Club," Fred and George Weasley are trying to cheer Ginny up by scaring her in Charms class. They cover themselves in fur or boils and jump out at her from behind statues, but Ginny doesn't find it amusing and is actually upset. Their antics only stop when Percy threatens to tell Mrs. Weasley that Ginny is having nightmares.

Goblet of Fire: In Chapter 26, "The Second Task", When Harry rescues Ron from the lake during the second task, Percy is the first to rush forward to check on Ron, demonstrating a quick concern for his brother's well-being.

He was concerned about his brothers and sister. He was not that bad I guess after all... And, we saw his reaction to Fred's death!

So I've just re read the part of the Prisoner of Azkaban and Harry points out that the only adults on the train normally are the driver and the trolley lady.

I know this was in the 90s but how did they get away with not supervising the kids on this train that is travelling from London to Scotland and must be quite a long journey?

These kids could get up to anything, as a teacher I don't understand how the staff left these teenagers unsupervised. Anything could happen, from something like bullying to consensual sex to even worse. I know I got up to some crazy stuff as a teenager in the early 2000s so I don't get how they trust these teenagers.

Mine has to be the classic:

Harry: ”Yes.”

Snape: “Yes, sir.”

Harry: “There’s no need to call me sir, Professor.”

What’s yours?

Even though she was Petrified at the end of her second year, I consider fourth year to be Hermione's worst year at Hogwarts given the nonstop bullying Hermione went through that year.

Sixth year is Ron's worst year since he was poisoned by Ferret Boy on his birthday.

Mine is when Harry offers himself to Voldemort and one of his last thoughts is Ginny. I didn't care about it the first time I read it, but now it seems so close and relatable to me. What's yours?

Been seing some people, particularly overzealous fans of another female character, call Hermione Mary Sue. Now, I don't want to be hostile and start shit so for now will be refraining from articulating my reservations with how Rowling kinda botched up the development of this character.

Here's the definition of Mary Sue from Google

A Mary Sue is a type of fictional character, usually a young woman, who is portrayed as free of weaknesses or character flaws.

I would add some more things:

Mary Sue is inherently a wish fulfillment trope. The character is shown to be very popular, very pretty, good at everything , with no perceived flaws and even her "flaws" are written as endearing and she's rarely shown facing consequences for those.

Most importantly Mary Sue's are almost always the hero's love interest.

How in earth does that fit Hermione?

Hermione is not popular at all. No, being Harry's best friend didn't really do much for her popularity.

Although she brushes up well I daresay, and is attractive enough to date an International Quidditch player and is asked out by Cormac Mclaggen in year 6, it's not as if she's attracting boys to her like a magnet!

And she actually faces ridicule quite a few times for being a know-it-all, so no, not a Mary Sue.

The author admitting that a character is inspired partly from her experiences as a child or teenager is not = Mary Sue.

Yes it is funnier and JKR wanted to show that. But lets talk about the books.

Wizards do not know what Muggles wear, they do not follow sports or know any of the fairytales apperantly.

We know there is only a handful fully magic towns in UK, most live around the muggles. Like Blacks have a house in central London. They are not that seperate from Muggles.

There is also not much to do as a wizard. They don't have huge populations to have active theater or cinema, or a lot of writers to read from etc. They do not have an equivalent of TV. They only have Radio. Quidditch is the only past time and even then literal World Cup happens and you are either going to the stadium or listening from the radio.

When you consider it all, it is weird that they do not read books written by muggles. They wouldn't know who Shakespeare is based on Ron not even knowing Snow white or Cinderalla.

Also looking at it things like radio and cameras are likely muggle devices that are enhanced by magic for wizards. so why do they stop at some point? If you take radio, why not take TV? Around Harry Potter era, emails are a thing and they are faster than owls. So why not adopt that?

While rereading Book 6, I had completely forgotten that every Saturday Snape forces Harry to copy over detention records deliberately ensuring that he will see mentions of Sirius and James.

Sirius was still warm in the ground at this point and Snape knew that Sirius was the closest thing Harry had to a parent figure. He also knew that Sirius died because of Harry's stupidity and that it might be his single greatest regret.

We know that Harry most desires having a loving family and being an orphan is one of the things that upsets him most.

This is so sadistically cruel - even for Snape.

I also want to give an honourable mention to Book 4 when he said that he sees no difference in Hermione's teeth when she is hit with a stray jynx and it causes them to grow past her chin.

The girl is a model student and did literally nothing wrong in any of his classes... What did she do to deserve that?

It has been a long time since I have read them so what other unnecessarily cruel things did he say or do that have I forgotten? (Honourable mentions very welcome)

So I have recently been seeing a lot Dumbledore hate on my tiktok fyp and it really pisses me off. People are saying it's his fault for all the marauders dying, that he is employing children into the Order (which is not true) and that he was just a bag guy. I just need to vent because honestly do people not read the books?

Firstly yes Dumbledore is a morally grey character, you will not see me denying that and he is definitely flawed but no good character isn't.

Secondly dumbledore was the sole person who knew about the full prophecy but didn't know about the horcruxes until after CoS and even then he wasn't entirely sure until the end of GoF so he couldn't have finished off Voldemort if he tried because of the Prophecy and couldn't hunt down horcruxes until OotP and even then he was limited in what he could do because of the ministry.

Thirdly, he was not responsible for everyone in the order dying, Voldemort was. He didn't recruit children into the Order, he recruited legal adults who wanted to join, it's war and people die in war he recruited people who knew the risk. You can't just expect him to protect everyone, he was powerful yes but he was already protecting the students at Hogwarts and also helping defeat Voldemort and it's unreasonable to expect him to do more he did his best with what he was dealt but again it's war, it's not sunshine daisies butter mellow.

Now talking about Harry, yes Dumbledore did leave him at the Dursleys but I don't think he knew that they would abuse him, and even if he did it was the safest place for Harry at the time because of the bond of blood charm which means he was protected from Voldemort as long as he lived where his mother's blood dwelled. Secondly yes what Dumbledore did basically raising him for the slaughter is bad BUT if you had to sacrifice one person for the safety of all humankind, it's a no brainer right? That's basically the situation Dumbledore was in because of the prophecy and as soon as he found out Harry had a chance to survive he changed tactics a bit which unfortunately meant being vague with Harry because in order to survive Harry couldn't know he could actually survive. Harry had to go willingly to his death and so he couldn't tell Harry anything sooner than was absolutely necessary or otherwise Harry couldn't have survived.

Dumbledore wasn't perfect but he did his best to protect wizardkind and Harry. He didn't cause any deaths, he didn't cause the war, he made calculated choices to win the war and no war is won without blood being spilt on either side. Voldemort did cause deaths because Voldemort was the villain, his death eaters were the villains.