Just thought I'd add my own two cents...

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

A little late to the party but enjoying every minute of it. I was thinking of Harry Potter plot holes and similar and suddenly I came across this little list online, and was amazed at how well it fit some of the complaints you guys make.

The list itself is criticizing another fantasy series by an unrelated author and so it may not be entirely compatible with Harry Potter, but most of the items on it are. A few of the juiciest items on the list are recapped below, but feel free to visit the original list to see if there’s anything I might not have mentioned.

*The Hero must not know jack shit about how the real world works. Instead he must rely completely on his mentors to tell him things and never question what they tell him. This is so that the reader can learn about things as he does in massive info-dumps.

Do I need to say more?

Evil is Evil. Good is Good. If someone is designated evil, then no matter what they do, it will be evil. If someone is designated good, then no matter what they do it will be good.

It’s Okay If A Gryffindor Does It, anyone?

The Hero is the only one who can save the world. If he doesn't it's DOOOOOMM!!

That’s why everyone sits around waiting for Harry to succeed rather than aiding the war effort on their own!

The Hero is the only one who fits the Prophecy. There must be a prophecy. Preferably with things like Chosen One, Prophecy, Future of the World Depends on It, Ancient Evil and Dark Lords.

Well, technically Neville fits the prophecy as well, but everything else checks out!

There must be a slave that the Hero frees who will become instantly loyal to him

Oh, hello, Dobby!

*Characterization is over-rated. In fact it's not needed at all. Stereotypes are all you need.

See Voldemort, personality and backstory!

The Hero is more important than anyone. Any other events that happen in his vicinity that would be potentially more interesting should be ignored in favor of whatever he's doing.

Much of DH is composed of this.

The climax doesn't have to be at all climatic or satisfying as long as the Hero looks good or does something impossible. Better if he does both.

The end of DH, oh, dear God, the end of DH!

That's about all I was planning on writing but you should check out the list and see for yourself just how well it fits here!

Comments

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/•No matter how smart and cunning your villains are they automatically become stupid when confronted with the Hero./

Example: Voldemort trying out the Avada Kedavra Curse for the umpteenth time right after Harry has told him that it won't work because he's not the master of the Elder Wand. Not to mention that you'd think that after trying to use the same curse to kill Harry and failing three times already, Voldemort would try to use something else.

On the discussion board of that website, some people tried to apply the rules to different fandoms. One of the posters actually added more rules, based on the "Sword of Truth" series:

/-If the bad fantasy novel is written by a man, homosexuality is icky. Homoerotic undertones involving the hero are fine./

For the first sentence, I know that it doesn't seem to fit at first since JKR is obviously a woman and she outed Dumbledore as gay during a conference. I know that she doesn't directly say that homosexuality is bad in the books themselves, but just the fact that she didn't directly state that Dumbledore was gay in the books or directly mention any other gay characters kind of sends an uncomfortable message. Either it's "a lot of people think homosexuality is icky, so she didn't dare put it in the books" or "she secretly thinks that homosexuality is icky, so she didn't put it in the books." As for the second...I'll let the dozens of yaoi ships in the HP fandom (as well as the commentary in this LJ community ;P) speak for themselves.

/The antagonist must be so evil that he'd given Satan night terrors. So things like subtlety and redeeming features are for losers who want to be politically correct. Now get back to the villain raping that eight-year-old!/

Thankfully, Voldemort never stoops that low (at least in canon), but yes, I really don't think that JKR gave him any redeeming features whatsoever. Unless you count his fondness for Nagini and his rage when Bellatrix was killed, but then again, fans can rationalize that he just views them as prized possessions, not creatures or people with feelings.

/-Just saying your female character is strong is all the proof you need./

Oh, Tonks, Ginny, we barely knew ye. :(

/-If a female is overweight or unattractive, she must be evil or a background character./

Molly is the exception to this rule, but Umbridge, Pansy, and Millicent fit it well.

/-A 30 year old hero has the same mentality as a 16 year old on./

Example: James "He Did Grow Up, Honestly!" Potter still hexing Snape after going out with Lily and running to confront Voldemort *without a wand.*

/-Being politically incorrect automatically makes you a satirical genius who's work is intelligent and profound. Only stupid, prudish political correctness nazis who are "afraid to face reality" think your story about about the main character beating his pregnant wife to death with a dead downs syndrome baby while screaming the word, "nigger" is not funny and are too stupid to get your deep commentary on the dark side of humanity./

Examples: Harry casting the Cruciatus Curse on Amycus and being praised as "gallant" (because he was stressed-out, it was wartime!), Fred and George's pranks being hilarious tricks and not harmful bullying in the least (they're just having fun, just like the Marauders!), Hermione being a "strong woman" by shooting deadly birds at Ron and subsequently causing him to end up in the hospital (it's funny, it's a girl power moment!), Harry nearly killing Draco with the Sectumsempra Curse with no repercussions (Draco tried to throw the Cruciatus Curse at him first, he deserved it!), not a single Slytherin student staying for the battle (they were just showing their true colors!), Hermione permanently disfiguring Marietta's face (Marietta deserved it, she was a traitor!) and the Malfoys never getting a definite redemptive story arc (redemption is for wusses, villains who join the good guys become pansies, and you're just a sentimental sucker for wanting them to change!)

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

Wow, I never saw the expanded version on the message boards! Thanks!

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

You're welcome! I think that the other posters apply these criteria to Eragon and their own original characters, so enjoy! :)

[elanor-x.livejournal.com]

...I'll let the dozens of yaoi ships in the HP fandom (as well as the commentary in this LJ community ;P) speak for themselves.

I wouldn't. To prevent misunderstandings, I don't say JKR views homosexuality badly, just that yaoi ships don't necessary show the author's views. Let's see what she did put in the books. The only gay character she presented - DD - was in love with Hitler-equivalent, which destroyed his family, killed his little sister and scarred him for life. The only gay love she showed was of horrible destruction. JKR was coy when she talked about people being afraid of love in her interview. They (including very religious ones) aren't afraid of love, but rather of sex, which DD most likely never had. See? Many religious and/or anti-gay people want gays be like DD. Or celibate for life or married to a woman out of duty, like a haredi Jewish man I read about (I live in Israel), who gave interview to a big Israeli newspaper about how being gay doesn't prevent him from leading righteous life - married to a woman with numerous children. Gay sex is what frightens religious people &, alas, still too many heterosexual men. Making DD old & celibate made him not threatening to those people & their ideologies. Besides, DD is stereotypically gay:

[From the same sistermagpie's recap I quote below]
*Also he’s dressed in plum velvet and garish taste in clothing is a sign of being a good person. (In the books, that is. Fandom continues to try to hang tacky ruffles on the Malfoys and dress the Weasleys in vintage chic.)
*ETA: Oh jeez, do I even have to say it? I was possibly being too generous in thinking the garish taste was code for fun-loving, good person. Perhaps it was a clever way to say he was something else...

Saying after all books have already been sold that one of old characters was gay in a stereotypical way (& celibate) doesn't make one a cultural warrior, imo.

The antagonist must be so evil that he'd given Satan night terrors. ... Now get back to the villain raping that eight-year-old!/
Thankfully, Voldemort never stoops that low (at least in canon)

From http://community.livejournal.com/deathtocapslock/81144.html

*Mrs. Cole then wanders into that odd grey area of the HP books where some kind of sexual abuse is suggested by hinting at something dreadful happening when the two little children followed Tom into a cave, but if you bring it up the more hysterical fans would probably tell you you were sick. I admit it does add a nice little frisson to the proceedings!

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/To prevent misunderstandings, I don't say JKR views homosexuality badly, just that yaoi ships don't necessary show the author's views./

Oh, yes, I know. I don't think that the homoerotic undertones of the books that the poster was talking about were deliberately put there by the author, either. It was just a joke because so many fans do think that there are homoerotic undertones in the Harry Potter books, even if JKR didn't deliberately think of them. Just look at how many "subtext" lines there are regarding Harry and Draco or Harry and Tom.

/The only gay love she showed was of horrible destruction./

Which is why it sends unfortunate implications about homosexuality, regardless of JKR's original intention.

/JKR was coy when she talked about people being afraid of love in her interview. They (including very religious ones) aren't afraid of love, but rather of sex, which DD most likely never had./

Agreed, many fundies even have the nerve to deny that homosexuals can feel love at all; they claim that it's all about the "nasty, sinful sex" (even though they're the ones who keep fixating on it. Projection, much?).

/Many religious and/or anti-gay people want gays be like DD. Or celibate for life or married to a woman out of duty..Gay sex is what frightens religious people &, alas, still too many heterosexual men. Making DD old & celibate made him not threatening to those people & their ideologies./

Also, it would make those people feel more comfortable with the idea that Dumbledore was a teacher and headmaster, two positions where he was in charge of children. Not that that stopped some people from accusing Dumbledore of raping Harry anyway. *sighs*

/Saying after all books have already been sold that one of old characters was gay in a stereotypical way (& celibate) doesn't make one a cultural warrior, imo./

Yes, and that's why many people were upset that JKR didn't have the nerve to directly state that Dumbledore was gay in the books. The media made it seem as if it were some step in the direction of gay rights, but there are already YA books that feature openly homosexual characters. Saying that Dumbledore being outed in an interview after his sexuality was never made plain in the books is some great moment for LGBT rights is like saying that a character who was revealed to be African-American in an interview after her race was never indicated in the books is some great stride for African-American rights.

As for that theory for what happened between Tom and the two children in the cave...to be honest, I never got that impression while reading the books. I just thought that he used some kind of magic to tamper with their minds and render them insane. I know that there have been a few disturbing cases of prepubescent children committing sexual abuse, but they're very rare and that's another reason why I never thought of it. I think that's also why I never thought that Ariana's treatment by the three Muggle boys was sexual abuse, either. I have to agree with the LJ user guardians_song in that it's kind of offensive to assume that all trauma has to be sexually based. I don't think that every single war veteran who has come home with PTSD suffered sexual abuse while overseas, for example. I don't know, that's just my opinion.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Oh, yes, I know. I don't think that the homoerotic undertones of the books that the poster was talking about were deliberately put there by the author, either. It was just a joke because so many fans do think that there are homoerotic undertones in the Harry Potter books, even if JKR didn't deliberately think of them. Just look at how many "subtext" lines there are regarding Harry and Draco or Harry and Tom.

I think much of the homoeroticism that fans read into the text is the result of Rowling's word choice when describing the Slytherins/villains. IOW it comes from Rowling using implicitly sexual vocabulary for describing threatening or evil situations and actions.

Also, it would make those people feel more comfortable with the idea that Dumbledore was a teacher and headmaster, two positions where he was in charge of children. Not that that stopped some people from accusing Dumbledore of raping Harry anyway.

Well, I'd say the way Twinkly gave Harry special attention and eventually sent him to die looks predatory, even if it's non-sexual predation.

[merrymelody.livejournal.com]

That, and Rowling seems to have a kind of dislike towards women, at least those who don't fit the specific ideals of womanhood (pretty, slim, wanting to marry and have children but also willing to be passive rather than sexually aggressive, superficially 'feisty' but generally submitting to a male authority figure) and since we're generally seeing things from Harry's POV, you get this sensual, detailed wordings about men and their physicality and for girls it's...nice hair.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

Perhaps JKR is just a very heterosexual woman, to the degree that she has difficulty imagining what it must be like to fancy girls, hence the romance scenes being generally vague and relying on cliches. OTOH, she has a much better understanding of what it is that makes men attractive, hence her constant gushing about how handsome Tom Riddle is.

(Love your icon, BTW. :))

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

"Yes, and that's why many people were upset that JKR didn't have the nerve to directly state that Dumbledore was gay in the books."

JKR being a coward. Ironically a few days ago I watched a video in which someone said it was brave of her to kill beloved characters, in an attempt to compare her favorably to an (admittedly horrible and highly politically-incorrect) author who didn't have the heart to do so. Wierd stuff....

[oryx_leucoryx]

JKR being a coward.

What kind of Gryffindor is she?

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"Example: Voldemort trying out the Avada Kedavra Curse for the umpteenth time right after Harry has told him that it won't work because he's not the master of the Elder Wand. Not to mention that you'd think that after trying to use the same curse to kill Harry and failing three times already, Voldemort would try to use something else."

Or the fight scene at the end of OOTP, when the Death Eaters manage to break into a top-secret government department and lure Harry Potter there, before suddenly having an attack of incompetence and being unable to defeat a group of fifteen-year-old children. Coincidentally, they recover from this the moment they're facing some proper grown-up adversaries.

"/-If the bad fantasy novel is written by a man, homosexuality is icky. Homoerotic undertones involving the hero are fine./

For the first sentence, I know that it doesn't seem to fit at first since JKR is obviously a woman and she outed Dumbledore as gay during a conference. I know that she doesn't directly say that homosexuality is bad in the books themselves, but just the fact that she didn't directly state that Dumbledore was gay in the books or directly mention any other gay characters kind of sends an uncomfortable message. Either it's "a lot of people think homosexuality is icky, so she didn't dare put it in the books" or "she secretly thinks that homosexuality is icky, so she didn't put it in the books." As for the second...I'll let the dozens of yaoi ships in the HP fandom (as well as the commentary in this LJ community ;P) speak for themselves."

Not to mention the fact that the only gay relationship Rowling imagined was specifically stated to make Dumbledore lose his moral compass so completely that he planned to take over the world and make himself and his BF Supreme Evil Overlords. Hardly a particularly positive portrayal of homosexuality.

"Thankfully, Voldemort never stoops that low (at least in canon), but yes, I really don't think that JKR gave him any redeeming features whatsoever. Unless you count his fondness for Nagini and his rage when Bellatrix was killed, but then again, fans can rationalize that he just views them as prized possessions, not creatures or people with feelings."

It's a shame, as Voldemort might have been a more frightening antagonist if there were a sense that Harry could potentially end up like him. It would also be a good way of indicating the importance of choice (Voldie made bad choices, and ended up as an evil monster; Harry made better ones, and ended up a hero).

"/-Just saying your female character is strong is all the proof you need./"

Could apply to pretty much any character, with "strong" replaced with a relevant adjective (heroic, clever, bigoted, etc.).

"/-If a female is overweight or unattractive, she must be evil or a background character./

Molly is the exception to this rule, but Umbridge, Pansy, and Millicent fit it well."

Molly's arguably a background character, so...

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/Not to mention the fact that the only gay relationship Rowling imagined was specifically stated to make Dumbledore lose his moral compass so completely that he planned to take over the world and make himself and his BF Supreme Evil Overlords. Hardly a particularly positive portrayal of homosexuality./

Yes, I do like Albus/Gellert (it may be my favorite canon HP couple, actually), but you're right that the implications of their relationship aren't exactly encouraging or positive. I know that some fans have wondered what would have happened if Gellert had been female.

/It's a shame, as Voldemort might have been a more frightening antagonist if there were a sense that Harry could potentially end up like him. It would also be a good way of indicating the importance of choice (Voldie made bad choices, and ended up as an evil monster; Harry made better ones, and ended up a hero)./

I did think that Voldemort's background in HBP was interesting, but it was also disappointing because it undermined that very message. We were shown that he was descended from a twisted, inbred family, we were told that he was a "funny baby," and we were shown that as early as the age of eleven, he had already shown signs of being a psychopath. If he was born a sociopath, then what choice did he have to turn evil? How could he choose to be evil if he was already 'born evil,' so to speak?

I mean, from the little bit that we had in GoF, we could see some reasoning behind Voldemort's evil. He was abandoned by his father, a Muggle, and was left alone in a Muggle orphanage after his mother, a witch, died. Based on that information alone, we could conclude that the reason why he hated Muggles was because of his father and possibly because of whatever kind of treatment he received in the orphanage (since we saw in CoS that he clearly did *not* want to go back there). But then, later on in the series, we see that Voldemort doesn't really hate Muggles in the way that pureblood-supremacists do, because he despises everyone. Purebloods, half-bloods, Muggle-borns, Muggles, they are all worthy of contempt in his mind because he doesn't care about anyone. Just the way that Voldemort treated the Death Eaters made me think that perhaps all of the pureblood propaganda that he spouted was just that - propaganda. His main goal seemed to be gaining immortality and how exactly would a pureblood-supremacist agenda help with that? What did one have to do with the other? Why did he even want to become immortal in the first place? Out of vanity? We never did get a reason why he fears his own death so much.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

Canon's attitude towards Voldemort is really confused. On the one hand, he's portrayed as a psychopath, literally incapable of feeling love since the day he was born; on the other, he's treated almost as if he wilfully chose to be that way (e.g., Harry's "try for some remorse" comment at the end of DH). Even if we accept the Psycho!Voldemort view (which seems to be supported the most), that still diminishes him as an evil villain, since "evil" implies some sort of moral judgement, and it makes no sense to judge somebody for not feeling any empathy when he's literally incapable of doing so.

As for his fear of death, I agree that that comes out of nowhere. I seem to recall one pre-HBP theory that Tom Riddle's orphanage had got bombed during the Second World War, and that that experience had traumatised him enough to cause his fear of death and hatred of Muggles, which would make sense, certainly more so than the canon explanation (such as it is).

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/As for his fear of death, I agree that that comes out of nowhere./

I remember the first time that I read the part in the graveyard scene in GoF where Voldemort said that his main goal was to conquer death and thinking, "Huh? How are you conquering death by killing people? And why do you want to conquer death in the first place?"

/I seem to recall one pre-HBP theory that Tom Riddle's orphanage had got bombed during the Second World War, and that that experience had traumatised him enough to cause his fear of death and hatred of Muggles, which would make sense, certainly more so than the canon explanation (such as it is)./

You're right, that does make sense. In fact, he could have very well been the wizarding world's Magneto, prompted toward violence by humanity's acts of terror and depravity. Magneto was spurred to hate humanity by his imprisonment in a concentration camp; Voldemort could have been spurred to hate Muggles by nearly dying in the Blitz.

(Although if Voldemort is Magneto, does that make Dumbledore Professor Xavier? Especially since some Albus/Gellert fans have already linked him to Xavier and linked Grindelwald to Magneto as well?)

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

It's not so much that Magneto hates humanity as that he doesn't want mutants to suffer like the Nazis' victims. Magneto's fighting for the good of his people, making him seem closer to Neville or Regulus than anyone else in the Potterverse I can think of.

Pureblood supremacist propaganda

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Actually, my conspiracy theory du jour about Tom's taking up the PBS line is that he wanted to stop the old Pureblood lines interbreeding with Muggles--because he knew enough genetics to think those offspring would be potentially the most powerful, and he didn't want young rivals springing up.

I mean, if you aspire to immortality and world domination, you need to be thinking about longterm threats to your power, right?

And it's canon that Dumbledore, Riddle, and Harry are all half-bloods. Oh, yeah, and that Prince guy, whazzizname....

Re: Pureblood supremacist propaganda

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting idea and it does make sense. Maybe, in addition to taking care of any half-blood rivals, Tom promoted the pureblood line so that he could weaken wizards as a whole? Given that he'd seen how his mother's own pureblood family had ended up due to inbreeding, perhaps Tom would encourage pureblood-supremacists to keep marrying each other until they'd become just as insane and twisted as the Gaunts, and he'd have even less to worry about in terms of competition?

Inbreeding

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Doesn't that just seem like something that would appeal to our Tommy?

And really--Walpurga, Bellatrix, and Sirius none are poster children for the Black family's mental stability.... James Potter, Draco, and Neville are all only children (infertility being a common problem); Alecto and Amycus are frankly as malformed physically as morally....

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"Harry nearly killing Draco with the Sectumsempra Curse with no repercussions (Draco tried to throw the Cruciatus Curse at him first, he deserved it!),"

Just a thought, but would Draco actually have been able to Crucio Harry in that scene? Bellatrix said that someone casting it needs to enjoy causing pain in others, and Draco struck me more as "frightened and panicky" than "taking sadistic pleasure in Harry's sufferings", at least during this scene. I suppose he might conceivably be able to knock Harry down like Harry does to Bellatrix in OOTP, but probably nothing more than that.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

I don't think Draco would have been able to do it, but for those who don't like him, they can just say that it was the intent that mattered. Draco *intended* to try and use the Cruciatus Curse, while probably knowing full well what it does, so his action was reprehensible (even though Harry tried the same thing in OotP). I think that JKR had Draco cast it just to show that hey, in case you forgot, he's on the Dark Side! Look at how evil he is!

But I think that sistermagpie was right in her commentary on that scene about how Harry and Draco's reflexive readiness to use that spell really diminishes the meaning of the Cruciatus Curse. If it's just a spell that anyone can try to throw at random in a fit of rage, then it really doesn't seem all that intense or important. The way that Bellatrix described it and Fake!Moody demonstrate it suggested that it was a Dark spell performed coolly and deliberately. And earlier commentators on DH were right in saying that by Bellatrix's definition, Draco really shouldn't have been able to cast it when Voldemort forced him to use it. After all, he showed all signs of *not* enjoying the pain that he caused in his victim.