Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban discussion

The 'owl,cat or toad' debate is not really that important. I reckon its one of those things like 'most students bring these pets but if you want you can bring another' (that wasn't a quote from the book btw).

Ayah wrote: "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..."
Here I think it was right at the end of the school year so they may not necessarily get these carriages to the train at the end of the school year. Also maybe because it just happened and he was still shocked they may not have been visible to him just yet.

Hmm, I don't remember anything about Charlie's age, I'll have to look out for that :) and cool you're from Argentina? That's so awesome!

Jellybeans(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..."

The basilisk would have to get Harry's head, where the horcrux was located.

Babafaba(Hypnos)((Awesome Bob))(((Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore))) 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..."

okay so im not crazy?

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

This was the one that always bothered me. The letter was so specific about exactly what pets were acceptable that it seems unlikely that they were just allowed to bring whatever they want. And if no one cared what they brought, why bother to put it in the letter at all? It's not like the letter listed every random rule in existence. It was a pretty short letter.

LOL!Even I love Harry Potter

Yeah, the pets one is difficult because I don't think they'd put it in the letter if it wasn't a real rule. Yet everyone seemed to break it.

about the rat thing, I always thought it was some sort of exception because the Weasleys couldn't afford an owl for each of their children, so when Percy became prefect (I think it was the time he was a prefect) and Ron started school, he got Scabbers. Anyway I'm not sure because there are no references of Fred and George's pets, but in the case of Ginny, he gets that thing called micropuff (I don't know the English translation) because Fred and George give it to her.

Aru wrote: "about the rat thing, I always thought it was some sort of exception because the Weasleys couldn't afford an owl for each of their children, so when Percy became prefect (I think it was the time he ..."

I agree. Maybe,since Dumbledore knew the Weasley family well, they made an exception for them since they were poor. Also a little correction. Percy got the letter for becoming a prefect in "The Prisoner of Azkaban". But it doesn't matter.

Percy had the rat for 12 years

Amanda wrote: "Ayah wrote: "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..."


Nah they do take the carriages back to the train I checked it says I quote " Hermione turned away, smiling at the horseless carriages which were now trundling towards them up the drive, as Krum, looking surprised, but gratified, signed a fragment of parchment for Ron."

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 ..."

The reason is it is a continuing time circle (can time have a circle?) so it was kind of like the "everything happens for a reason thing". Or like time can tell the future. And it makes future Harry go to past Harry. So it makes a continuing time circle thing. Hope that makes sense cause that's the only way I can put it

EDIT: I get it!!!!!!!!!!!!! It might be a parallel universe self that goes to their universe to do it and that starts the loop. Maybe the parallel universe is a couple hours ahead of us and Parallel Dumbledore knew about our universe and told Harry and Hermione to go to our universe and save themselves. It sounds really complicated but its not really.

Amanda wrote: "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 th..."

Harry did not count himself maybe, if that works out.


This is enough problem solving for 1 day. I already had to take the Terra Nova test (well part of it)today and my brain was like, completely fried after that.

Amanda wrote: "Ayah wrote: "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..."

um..... he starts noticing them in the 5th book and that's after Cedric dies and you don't ride the carriages back to the train at the end of the year so........ yeah, that's right, and not a mistake

well if you were talking about the movies because you don't ride the carriages back to the train in the movie

or maybe they kind of take some time to "load" in your brain so you don't really see them till after a while

Claire wrote: "or maybe they kind of take some time to "load" in your brain so you don't really see them till after a while"

yeah thats what some people say but I kjust think like cedric died instantly and harry saw so I would think that he could them instantly see thestrals. And I am talking about the books since a quoted from the book

Aru wrote: "about the rat thing, I always thought it was some sort of exception because the Weasleys couldn't afford an owl for each of their children, so when Percy became prefect (I think it was the time he ..."

What about Lee's tarantula though?

Claire wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Ayah wrote: "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 t..."

You said Claire that they don't take the carriages on the way back home, but Ayah proved they do in her comment above (message 65) with a quote from the books :)

I sort of remember something J.K once said in an interview that he didn't see the thestrals at first because he didn't technically see his parents die. Then he was in shock after Cedric died so he didn't see them at the end of Goblet of Fire. I found this a bit hard to believe but there you are.

Aru wrote: "about the rat thing, I always thought it was some sort of exception because the Weasleys couldn't afford an owl for each of their children, so when Percy became prefect (I think it was the time he ..."

That doesn't really make sense though. You can't have exceptions to rules for kids. What if someone else wants a rat but they're not poor? Why should being poor have anything to do with it? Rats cost money too. A toad would have been just as inexpensive an option.

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..."

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..."

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..."

Actually, in the movies Ron did date Lavender Brown. Romilda Vane was just when he had eaten the chocolate cauldrons she had given Harry, that had the love spell in them. After getting the antidote, he didn't have anything to do with Romilda again.

i always thought hermione was saying that she'd never used OBLIVIATE before. that's what she used on the death eaters. whatever she did to her parents was waaay beyond oblivate. she completely reconstructed their lives. i would think that would require more than a charm.

the error that irks me is charlie weasley. they kept saying how gryffindor hadn't won since charlie left, making it seem he'd been gone awhile. but unless charlie left hogwarts after OWLS (which i seriously doubt with molly as his mother), he had JUST finished his 7th year in June 1991, 3 months before harry gets there in September.

Jellybeans(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..."

The difference there is he was cured by Fawkes. A horcrux is only destroyed when no form of magic can save it. Basilisk venom has one magical cure, which Harry was lucky enough to have in him.
Had the phoenix tears been splashed on riddle's diary, it wouldn't have died either.

Peter wrote: "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 al..."

Seventeen sickles to a galleon, not 19. Still a little weird but 19 sickles is faster then saying a galleon and two sickles.

Carthya 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..."

In theory, if Harry was slashed with the sword, stabbed by a basilisk fang (without the cure), etc., the horcrux would leave. However, if someone killed him that wasn't voldemort without any of those means, he would just die and voldemort's soul would live on or something. Because Voldemort killed his own horcrux, it was destroyed and Harry could still live.
Does that make sense?

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

It's a lose rule, I think. That way, people don't show up with elephants or something, saying it was a pet. I'm sure if the pet caused major trouble and wasn't a cat, owl, or toad, it would be sent home.

Ayah wrote: "Percy had the rat for 12 years"

How would Percy have had the rat for 12 years when Pettigrew had only been "dead" for 10 years at the max? O_o

In book 1 it mentions "poisonous fangs". Shouldn't they be venomous?

Ayah wrote: "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..."

Supposedly, he didn't see them because he was still in shock. His parents deaths didn't cause him to see them because he was too young to remember, just to add that in.
Thats what J.K. Rowling said. Heres what I think really happened. The atmosphere wasn't right ti introduce the thestrals yet, so she put Harry on "shock" so she could wait for the right moment. It had a nice effect on the story when it was added in, so I have no complaints.

Jen 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 ..."

Oh my gosh you right He did date Lavender I had no Idea

Yeah so I found this interview about the Thestrials that cleared it up



In the fifth book, Harry can see the Thestrals. Can you?

J. K. Rowling: Yes, I can, definitely. That is a really good question, because it enables me to clear up a point. The letters that I’ve had about the Thestrals! Everyone has said to me that Harry saw people die before he could see the Thestrals. Just to clear this up once and for all, this was not a mistake. I would be the first to say that I have made mistakes in the books, but this was not a mistake. I really thought this one through. Harry did not see his parents die. He was one year old and in a cot at the time. Although you never see that scene, I wrote it and then cut it. He didn’t see it; he was too young to appreciate it. When you find out about the Thestrals, you find that you can see them only when you really understand death in a broader sense, when you really know what it means. Someone said that Harry saw Quirrell die, but that is not true. He was unconscious when Quirrell died, in Philosopher’s Stone. He did not know until he came round that Quirrell had died when Voldemort left his body. Then you have Cedric. With Cedric, fair point. Harry had just seen Cedric die when he got back into the carriages to go back to Hogsmeade station. I thought about that at the end of Goblet, because I have known from the word go what was drawing the carriages. From Chamber of Secrets, in which there are carriages drawn by invisible things, I have known what was there. I decided that it would be an odd thing to do right at the end of a book. Anyone who has suffered a bereavement knows that there is the immediate shock but that it takes a little while to appreciate fully that you will never see that person again. Until that had happened, I did not think that Harry could see the Thestrals. That means that when he goes back, he saw these spooky things. It set the tone for Phoenix, which is a much darker book.


if you whant the full interview it's here http://harrypotter.bloomsbury.com/aut...

Sophia wrote: "Aru wrote: "about the rat thing, I always thought it was some sort of exception because the Weasleys couldn't afford an owl for each of their children, so when Percy became prefect (I think it was ...
I agree. Maybe,since Dumbledore knew the Weasley family well, they made an exception for them since they were poor. Also a little correction. Percy got the letter for becoming a prefect in "The Prisoner of Azkaban". But it doesn't matter. "

Percy got the letter to become Head Boy in Prisoner of Azkaban; he was a new Prefect in the first book.

V.K. wrote: "Ayah wrote: "Percy had the rat for 12 years"

How would Percy have had the rat for 12 years when Pettigrew had only been "dead" for 10 years at the max? O_o"

I don't have the book with me at the moment but when I find it i'll put up another quote about how long percy had Scabbers aka Wormtail aka Peter Petigrew

Jeanie wrote: "Sophia wrote: "Aru wrote: "about the rat thing, I always thought it was some sort of exception because the Weasleys couldn't afford an owl for each of their children, so when Percy became prefect (..."

yer he was then head boy in HP 3

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

It's a lose rule, I think. That way, people don't show up with elephants or something, sayi..."

Still doesn't make sense. If they just didn't want large pets, they could've listed a weight limit or something. They very specifically listed three pets that were allowed.

about the pets my brother just said, you know kids, do what ever they want.

As far as I remember:
The Hogwarts Express takes the students to school 1. of September every year. The day after that is always a monday.

Ayah wrote: "Yeah so I found this interview about the Thestrials that cleared it up



In the fifth book, Harry can see the Thestrals. Can you?

J. K. Rowling: Yes, I can, definitely. That is a really good ques..."7

Thanks for posting Ayah. People have made this point in the comments before, about how Harry was in shock and stuff, but it's cool to see it from the author herself. I think we can say once and for all that this was not a mistake. Phew, put my mind to rest about one thing :)

V.K. wrote: "Ayah wrote: "Percy had the rat for 12 years"

How would Percy have had the rat for 12 years when Pettigrew had only been "dead" for 10 years at the max? O_o"

That's a really good point, but I don't remember it ever saying Percy had Scabbers for 12 years, it just says for a long time. But if I'm just forgetting and it does say he had him for 12 years, then well spotted.

Anne wrote: "As far as I remember:
The Hogwarts Express takes the students to school 1. of September every year. The day after that is always a monday."

Oh my god. Your a genius! Great mistake Anne :)

Anne wrote: "As far as I remember:
The Hogwarts Express takes the students to school 1. of September every year. The day after that is always a monday."

How is this a mistake? They go to school on the first, have the feats and go to bed. Then they have classes in the morning, on a Monday.

Wait, never mind, I see now. It can't be a Monday every year. Do they say it's always a Monday? I just remember them stating what their first class is, they may have been looking at the correct day for all we know.

V.K. wrote: "Ayah wrote: "Percy had the rat for 12 years"

How would Percy have had the rat for 12 years when Pettigrew had only been "dead" for 10 years at the max? O_o"

Percy didn't have the rat for 12 years. It had been in the Weasley family for 12 years. Ron says it when they go to the Magical Menagerie in POA. Harry is 13 in that book so his parents had been dead for 12 years. Peter 'died' a few days after Harry's parents. So Scabbers was Percy's for 10 yrs (presumably) and Ron's for 2 years.

I think alot of people are also mixing up movie mistakes with book mistakes. Don't cross contaminate! :)

Jellybeans(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..."

Harry is not a horcrux, technically or otherwise. JKR herself said he isn't:

for convenience, I had Dumbledore say to Harry, "You were the Horcrux he never meant to make," but I think, by definition, a Horcrux has to be made intentionally. So because Voldemort never went through the grotesque process that I imagine creates a Horcrux with Harry, (SU: Mm-hm.) it was just that he had destabilized his soul so much that it split when he was hit by the backfiring curse. And so this part of it flies off, and attaches to the only living thing in the room. A part of it flees in the very-close-to-death limbo state that Voldemort then goes on and exists in. I suppose it's very close to being a Horcrux, but Harry did not become an evil object. He didn't have curses upon him that the other Horcruxes had. He himself was not contaminated by carrying this bit of parasitic soul. The only time he ever felt it stirring and moving was in Order of the Phoenix, when he himself goes through a very dark time.

In general, no author, no matter how meticulous, is perfect. (Though JKR seems more detail-oriented than many.) Mistakes may slip by in editing and proofing.

But in this case, though fans may debate "Is Harry a Horcrux?", JKR is consistent: he is not. Therefore the basilisk venom destroying him is a non-issue and not a mistake. It's plenty deadly to regular old Harry regardless, and he needs the phoenix tears to save him.

Accuse her of lazy writing for taking the convenient way out if you want ...

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

This was the one that always bothered me. The letter was so specific about exactly what pet..."

The letter does not state this is an exclusive list, You may bring an owl, cat, or toad and no other." It can be seen as suggestive rather than a rigid list. At any rate, it has a loophole.

Jellybeans(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..."

He was dying, but was saved by Fawkes.

Yeah Angie your right Wormtail was in the Weasley family for 12 years it was just that V.K said that Wortail had only been "dead" for 10 years which of course is not true lol

Hey guys what about 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 O.W.Ls 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.