Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban discussion

{30/10/2014 Thanks everyone for over 1500 views and over 250 wonderful comments! You guys are awesome!}

Hey everyone. Every writer makes mistakes sometimes. Whether it's a spelling mistake, a change of eye colour in one of the characters, a different number of doors that lead off one room, or anything else, they're bound to happen occasionally. The Harry Potter books are no exception.

I'm not trying to insult J.K or anything, because I don't blame her whatsoever if she made a slight mistake. As I said before, it's bound to happen. :)

So I thought it might be cool if you've spotted a mistake in the HP series, please comment below and we can see what people have spotted and stuff.

Ooh, and if you've found a mistake in the films, we could do that too. There's probably a fair few of those!

Thanks!

I'll start. This is a quote from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows:

' "What are we going to do with them?" Ron whispered to Harry through the dark, then, even more quietly, "Kill them? They'd kill us. They had a good go just now."
Hermione shuddered and took a step backwards.
Harry shook his head. "We just need to wipe their memories," said Harry. "It's better like that, it'll throw them off the scent, if we killed them it'd be obvious we were here."
"You're the boss," said Ron, sounding profoundly relieved, "But I've never done a memory charm."
"Nor have I," said Hermione, "But I know the theory," . . .'

So your parents' memories just disappeared did they Hermione? She'd already modified their memories at this point, so they'd forget her.

Daisy.c wrote: "I'll start. This is a quote from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows:

' "What are we going to do with them?" Ron whispered to Harry through the dark, then, even more quietly, "Kill them? They'd k..."

Nice. I am going to have to go through them again.

This is cool! Heres one (not word for word!)

So in Deathly Hallows Mrs.Weasley forces Charlie into a chair and annouces he's about to get a proper hair-cut! That's all fine and yes charlie needs his hair cutting too but for all the books but the 7th BILL was the one with long hair!

Oops...

HP & the Prisoner of Azkaban

Time travel paradox. The one that bothers me the most.

The first time the reader sees Harry go into the forest and is attacked by Dementors, he sees what he believes is his father saving him. Later we find out that it was Harry himself going back in time and saving himself.

I want to know what happened the first time. Not the first time we the reader see it happen, but the very first time. Why? because in the very first time it happens there wouldn't be a Harry to save himself. You see in order for Harry to go back in time to save himself is to survive the first time.

There are endless possibilities as to how that time loop started but one was not provided.

Here is an error......... (Harry was supposed to die in the 7th book)

So in the second book it says that basilisk poison can destroy a horrorcrux. And technically Harry is a horrorcrux, so that means when he is fighting the basilisk and the fang goes in his arm,he was supposed to go to the white train station thing. But he didn't. Error.

Daisy.c wrote: "I'll start. This is a quote from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows:

' "What are we going to do with them?" Ron whispered to Harry through the dark, then, even more quietly, "Kill them? They'd k..."

I think here she just didn't want to tell the guys yet though right?

Evojanus wrote: "HP & the Prisoner of Azkaban

Time travel paradox. The one that bothers me the most.

The first time the reader sees Harry go into the forest and is attacked by Dementors, he sees what he believes ..."

It is simply a loop. By Harry going back in time he was already on the path to saving himself. He is saved by his future self. By Harry and Hermione going back in time they are simply following what their future selves have already done. I know it sounds really confusing and it's very hard to explain in writing. It makes sense though believe me!

Jamie wrote: "Here is an error......... (Harry was supposed to die in the 7th book)

So in the second book it says that basilisk poison can destroy a horrorcrux. And technically Harry is a horrorcrux, so that me..."

It's not really an error as he was saved from Fawkes's tears so that is why he didn't die.

Sophie wrote: "This is cool! Heres one (not word for word!)

So in Deathly Hallows Mrs.Weasley forces Charlie into a chair and annouces he's about to get a proper hair-cut! That's all fine and yes charlie needs h..."

All the Weasley's kind of have unruly hair don't they? I think Charlie probably does too so, as he doesn't live with the family anymore, he probably doesn't take care of his hair and that is why Molly wanted to cut it. She was just being a typical mother here I think and wanting her kids to look presentable.

I know that a lot of little mistakes were made in the books but were pointed out and then later corrected in later editions. As we all know though, Rowling is so meticulous that I really don't think any major plot mistakes were made.

Amanda wrote: "Daisy.c wrote: "I'll start. This is a quote from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows:

' "What are we going to do with them?" Ron whispered to Harry through the dark, then, even more quietly, "Kil..."

Why wouldn't she want to tell them? I don't get it, why not?

Evojanus wrote: "HP & the Prisoner of Azkaban

Time travel paradox. The one that bothers me the most.

The first time the reader sees Harry go into the forest and is attacked by Dementors, he sees what he believes ..."

Paradoxes are meant to be not understood, this paradox and how it is possible has never bothered me personally. Interesting point, but time travel is so complicated, I don't think we should try and understand! I've never really regarded this as a mistake, I just accepted that the time turner works in a way I could never understand.

Jamie wrote: "Here is an error......... (Harry was supposed to die in the 7th book)

So in the second book it says that basilisk poison can destroy a horcrux. And technically Harry is a horcrux, so that me..."

Actually that's a great point! I never thought of that! But I guess Amanda's right. Harry would have gone to King's Cross and had the choice whether to 'go on' or not, if he had died there. But he didn't; he was saved just in time by Fawkes, so if not for Fawkes' healing powers, you are correct.

Most purported mistakes aren't mistakes at all. And certainly not Rowling's mistakes.

Charlie and Bill both had long hair that bothered Molly.

The passage with Hermione "forgetting" that she's already performed memory modification on her parents is at least as much suppression of an incredibly painful memory. That's what people do when they've found themselves forced to do something they don't want to do. On top of that, she's in a high stress situation in the coffee shop (she's just been attacked by two thugs, remember?) So I think Hermione can be forgiven for not being strictly accurate with her recollection at that point.

Don't forget that Rowling worked at Amnesty and had first-hand experience of people coming from real-world high-stress situations (real torture, murder, genocide, and worse) and will have seen how fallible people's memories can be under stress.

My pet peeve about so-called "mistakes" was the scene in Harry's first visit to Diagon Allee where he hears someone complaining about the price of something going up to 19 sickles. The purported mistake is that the witch should have said "one galleon" (19 sickles to the galleon, right?) But the whole knut/sickle/galleon thing is a caricature of the old British non-decimal pound/shilling/pence currency, and I can assure you that people regularly used expressions like "why, that's twenty bob [shillings]!" rather than switching unit of currency to the pound (which was worth twenty shillings). This may seem strange to Americans and others who have grown up with a decimal currency system (and that will include most Brits born after the early seventies), but it nicely underscores the quaint old-fashionedness of the wizarding world.

Still, I understand later editions of Sorcerer's Stone had the sentence in question edited to a different price because too many readers didn't get it. But that's the point: whose mistake is it when readers don't get something?

Amanda wrote: "Daisy.c wrote: "I'll start. This is a quote from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows:

' "What are we going to do with them?" Ron whispered to Harry through the dark, then, even more quietly, "Kil..."


actually she had already told them when they were still at the burrow in Ron's bedroom

Hmm, you make a good point about the Hermione memory charm thing, but I'm still not completely convinced . . .

As for Charlie's haircut, it seems a bit weird for Rowling to put in this whole thing about Bill's hair throughout the series, then that never ends, but we do get a scene of Mrs. Wealsley giving Charlie a haircut in the last book. I'm led to think it was a mistake, yet it's very easy to explain away, saying that Mrs. Weasley thinks they all need haircuts and she's just being the classic paranoid mother at this point. So it might be a mistake, that did never the less work out perfectly fine.

Um, in my last comment I hadn't seen Ayah's comment, so I was taking about Peter's point about Hermione :)

I know she did tell them later on, but I was saying that if it wasn't a mistake, then why would Hermione just lie about not having done a memory charm because she didn't want them to know? It sort of proves that she didn't mind them knowing, when she tells them later on.

Daisy.c wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Daisy.c wrote: "I'll start. This is a quote from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows:

' "What are we going to do with them?" Ron whispered to Harry through the dark, then, even mor..."

Daisy.c wrote: "Evojanus wrote: "HP & the Prisoner of Azkaban

Time travel paradox. The one that bothers me the most.

The first time the reader sees Harry go into the forest and is attacked by Dementors, he sees ..."

It is obviously a very painful memory for Hermione and very raw too as it only just happened. I think that she just wasn't ready to discuss it at this particular moment. Also because of the actual hurried situation they were in did she really want to get in to a discussion about this there and then? They were in a dangerous situation and it wouldn't be the time to get in to it. Her saying what she does in this scene is simply to help the readers recall what she had to do and to acknowledge how painful this must be for her. Of course it's all a matter of opinion.

Ayah wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Daisy.c wrote: "I'll start. This is a quote from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows:

' "What are we going to do with them?" Ron whispered to Harry through the dark, then, even mor..."

Oh she had? I can't recall to be honest as it's been a while since I read them. I still don't necessarily think it was a mistake though. As I said above I just think because of the dangerous situation they were in she wasn't going to get in to a discussion about what she had to do with her parents. I love how we're all such devoted fans that we're discussing all these little details like this, LOL!

Amanda wrote: "Jamie wrote: "Here is an error......... (Harry was supposed to die in the 7th book)

So in the second book it says that basilisk poison can destroy a horrorcrux. And technically Harry is a horrorcr..."


well the Phoenix didn't come right away. sooo ya.

Jamie wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Jamie wrote: "Here is an error......... (Harry was supposed to die in the 7th book)

So in the second book it says that basilisk poison can destroy a horrorcrux. And technically Harr..."

It didn't necessarily mean he was going to die instantly from it. Fawkes saved him on time. Plus it obviously didn't kill the Horcrux in the first place because Harry was still a Horcrux in the Deathly Hallows.

Amanda wrote: "Evojanus wrote: "HP & the Prisoner of Azkaban

Time travel paradox. The one that bothers me the most.

The first time the reader sees Harry go into the forest and is attacked by Dementors, he sees ..."

It's not the loop itself that I don't understand, nor how the Time Turner works as Daisy C pointed out, it's the fact that the first time we see this event we're already in the loop. Considering the trio escapes Hagrid's hut because the rock is thrown which causes them to notice people were on their way, means that they're already in the loop.

What I am suggesting, is that there has to exist an original timeline. One where the loop has not happened yet since no one has been sent back in time.

If we were to look at it that way, then all of this could have been cut short back at Hagrid's hut. A rock has not been thrown yet, would they still have noticed that people were on their way? Theoretically, they could have escaped regardless. If they got caught, then they may have missed witnessing what happened with Black and Pettigrew, pending if they were escorted back to the castle, or simply told to go back on their own. This in itself causes a timeline split, because if they were held back from witnessing Blacks innocence, would Harry and Hermione go back in time at all just to save Buckbeak?

Let's say that they do still go and witness Black and Pettigrew. And Lupin transforms, and Harry ends up in dementor attack again. We finally come to my main objection. Original timeline, Harry and Hermione have not gone back in time yet, and by default means that there is no future Harry. Who saves Harry? Does he die? Does Dumbledore interfere? Does Hermione start to go back in time herself and try and rectify everything?

It would take a complicated series of events and potentially no less than 2 more time travels in order to get back to the loop presented in the book. It could be a short story on it's own. I would love to read it.

Christine wrote: "Daisy.c wrote: "I'll start. This is a quote from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows:

' "What are we going to do with them?" Ron whispered to Harry through the dark, then, even more quietly, "Kil..."

That's an awesome one! I never noticed that...

Evojanus wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Evojanus wrote: "HP & the Prisoner of Azkaban

Time travel paradox. The one that bothers me the most.

The first time the reader sees Harry go into the forest and is attacked by Deme..."

Oh man time travel discussions are always confusing aren't they?? Haha!


Again, I get what you're saying and this is always a topic that comes up with any time travel discussion whether it be a book or a movie (I am a huge Back to the Future fan). You could keep talking in circles about it for days. A lot of people explain it by the different types of time travel which would be firstly how it is in HP which is a fixed timeline and secondly like Back to the Future where if you stepped on a bug and killed it it would drastically affect the future. The Butterfly Effect in other words.

It's like I said earlier though this is still part of the loop. In HP, the timeline has already been set in motion. Harry never died at the lake because it had already been set in motion that he was saved. His future self has already travelled back in time.

I know totally what you mean and it is brain twisting when you think too much about it. I would suggest having a read about it on other forums and such as I'm sure there are plenty of people who have explained it far better than I!

Evojanus wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Evojanus wrote: "HP & the Prisoner of Azkaban

Time travel paradox. The one that bothers me the most.

The first time the reader sees Harry go into the forest and is attacked by Deme..."
I sent you the link to Mugglenet's explanation as it's the best I could find. http://www.mugglenet.com/levelnine/ti...

In the Hogwarts letter it says you can bring an owl, toad and cat but Ron brings a Rat...

Piper wrote: "In the Hogwarts letter it says you can bring an owl, toad and cat but Ron brings a Rat..."

Yes interesting and I'd also say that Percy to the rest as well



Oh and you said if there are any mistakes in the book


But what about things they like completely changed In the movie



So what about who Ron dates in the movie it's rimilda vain when it's supposed to be lavender broun.

But the pretty much had already changed the character in HP 4

In the first book it says that there were three people to be sorted left. Before Ron who was the last one Thomas,Dean and Turpin, Lisa then Ron who would be the last one but it says that Zabini Blaise ws sorted into Slytherin while Harry was talking to Ron.

Piper wrote: "In the Hogwarts letter it says you can bring an owl, toad and cat but Ron brings a Rat..."

JK as far as I know has never answered this but there are a few theories about it. I think most people say that they must be allowed some small pets as one of the characters has a tarantula and then there's pigwidgeon later in the books. Because Percy had the rat before Ron did I always assumed it must just be allowed as Percy is not a rule breaker.

Beau wrote: "In the first book it says that there were three people to be sorted left. Before Ron who was the last one Thomas,Dean and Turpin, Lisa then Ron who would be the last one but it says that Zabini Bla..."

I don't remember this and don't have the book at hand to check but here is an answer I found for you on Harry Potter Wikipedia 'In the American edition of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Harry saw that "there were only three people left to be sorted," but then Professor McGonagall read off four more names (Dean Thomas, Lisa Turpin, Ron Weasley and Blaise Zabini). Dean Thomas did not appear in the British edition. It is possible, however, that Harry did not see one of the first-years ahead of him'

Ayah wrote: "Piper wrote: "In the Hogwarts letter it says you can bring an owl, toad and cat but Ron brings a Rat..."

Yes interesting and I'd also say that Percy to the rest as well



Oh and you said if there..."

But it is lavender brown who he dates. He simply becomes infatuated with romilda vane due to accidentally taking the love potion she meant for Harry.

Amanda wrote: "Piper wrote: "In the Hogwarts letter it says you can bring an owl, toad and cat but Ron brings a Rat..."

JK as far as I know has never answered this but there are a few theories about it. I think ..."

You say that Percy brought Scabbers and he's not a rule breaker so there must be some sort of loop-hole where you can bring other animals, but if it's in the letter like that, it must be a proper rule. They wouldn't write in the letter 'You can bring a cat, owl or toad' when you can actually bring other stuff too. I always just thought Ron was breaking the rules, yet nobody really cared because it's not major or anything (as for Lee's tarantula, I never thought about that and he must have been breaking the rules too, and pigwideon is an owl, so no rule-breaking there).

But then you said about Percy. I guess there's a slight possibility Percy left Scabbers at home? But if Percy did take Scabbers to Hogwarts, he was breaking the rules, and that's not something he would ever do. So it's got to be either he left Scabbers at home or it's a mistake. . .

Beau wrote: "In the first book it says that there were three people to be sorted left. Before Ron who was the last one Thomas,Dean and Turpin, Lisa then Ron who would be the last one but it says that Zabini Bla..."

Oh, that's a good point. I'll have to look over that bit again, because I don't remember it precisely. Good one though :)

Daisy.c wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Piper wrote: "In the Hogwarts letter it says you can bring an owl, toad and cat but Ron brings a Rat..."

JK as far as I know has never answered this but there are a few theories abo..."

It's a strange one. I don't think it would be a mistake by Rowling though as it just seems too obvious for her to have it be a mistake when she is so meticulous. There must be something about it. And I didn't mean to say Pigwidgeon I meant that thing that Ginny had? Can't remember exactly what it was. I wonder if it's just first years that have to limit their pets and then they're allowed more of a variety? Also maybe other animals were allowed under special permission.

Oh, right you mean Arnold the Pigmepuff (I don't know if that's how you spell it!) I can't see any explanation except that it was a mistake, but that's hardly believable because Rowling is such a great author and it's a pretty big mistake to make, seeing how many kids bring different animals. I'm at a loss . . .

Hagrid names all his dangerous animals with nice names Hippogriff, Buckbeak Three-headed-dog, Fluffy Dragon Norbert, and then he names His harmless dog Fang.

lol thats so true

Beau wrote: "Hagrid names all his dangerous animals with nice names Hippogriff, Buckbeak Three-headed-dog, Fluffy Dragon Norbert, and then he names His harmless dog Fang."

The books have a fair few anti-Dickensian names (often in pairs). Peeves is the one who would filch; Filch is the peevish one. There are some others. It's a bit of dramatic irony.

Piper wrote: "In the Hogwarts letter it says you can bring an owl, toad and cat but Ron brings a Rat..."

So when did Hogwarts rules mean anything more than "break me, please break me!"? Can anyone name a single Hogwarts rule that doesn't get broken? (And, with only a few exceptions, with relative impunity.)

Rule enforcement is highly erratic at Hogwarts (in particular) and the wizarding world (in general). That's not a "mistake" on Rowling's part, that's simply part of the atmosphere.

Peter wrote: "Piper wrote: "In the Hogwarts letter it says you can bring an owl, toad and cat but Ron brings a Rat..."

So when did Hogwarts rules mean anything more than "break me, please break me!"? Can anyone..."

lol! I guess you're right, I can't really think of an argument against it.

This may just be Hagrid trying to make himself all impressive or something, but it could be a mistake:

In Philosopher's Stone Hagrid says, "Some say he's [voldemort] still out there biding his time. But I don't believe it, people on his side came back to ours, some of 'em came out of kind of trances, don't reckon they could have done if he was comin' back"

Then at the end of Goblet of Fire he says "Knew he [voldemort] was comin' back" . . . "had to happen, and we'll meet him when it does"

So he says he doesn't believe Voldemort is coming back, then says he knew all along that he was coming back! Do you think it's just attention seeking or trying to make himself seem impressive, or is it a mistake?

Daisy.c wrote: "This may just be Hagrid trying to make himself all impressive or something, but it could be a mistake:

In Philosopher's Stone Hagrid says, "Some say he's [voldemort] still out there biding his tim..."

I see where you're coming from there... but maybe Hagrid was trying to make Harry feel more comfortable about going to Hogwarts in Philosopher's Stone? He'd only be 11 years old, never even experienced magic before, so it'd have been too much for him to hear all about Voldemort... whereas he's grown up so much, and experienced so much in Goblet of Fire, so Hagrid was able to say what he truly believed in front of a more mature Harry?

Daisy.c wrote: "This may just be Hagrid trying to make himself all impressive or something, but it could be a mistake:

In Philosopher's Stone Hagrid says, "Some say he's [voldemort] still out there biding his tim..."

I think it's either what you said first, that it was Hagrid being Hagrid o else that he just didn't want to say that in front of a kid.

Thanks for replyin' Rachel, Huriyah and Amanda. I'd never thought that Hagrid was trying not to scare Harry by saying that, but it does seem like the most likely explanation. Thanks you guys :)

I don't have te books to check right now, but i remember reading something about Charlie's age being different during the books, and Jo admitted to have made a mistake there.

Sorry if my english is wrong, i'm from argentina :)

Amanda wrote: "Ayah wrote: "Piper wrote: "In the Hogwarts letter it says you can bring an owl, toad and cat but Ron brings a Rat..."

Yes interesting and I'd also say that Percy to the rest as well



Oh and you ..."



what i was saying was how they changed alot of characters from the book to the movie

I posted this question last year on a another discussion but I want to hear what you guys think


Okay you know how Thestrals pull the carriages that take you from the train station to hogwarts and back, and how you can only see them if you've seen someone die, well harry see cerdric die at the end of HP 4 and yet he doesn't see the Thesrals pull the carriage to the train station untill the next book.

there's also the ages of Fred and George are they a year older the Harry and them.

Cause I remember reading about Fred and George having there OWLs and I think I remember harry and them being in grade 3 and that would mean Fred and George would have had to be in grade 5 but then Fred and George don't leave school until they were in grade 6 and Harry and them were in grade 5.

So yeah