JKR answered that question in an interview. I don't remember exactly how, but it was one of two things: Harry didn't see death when his mother died -- he literally didn't see it, as in "he was in his crib and didn't see a thing"; or he just saw his mother drop to the floor and didn't proceed the information. You know, being one year old and all that.

So Harry saw death when he saw Diggory die.

 

It's a second cousin, so they don't need a reason. There actually is one though. The Mafalda storyline was cut from GoF, so it's not real canon (wonder how this works in Taure's hierarchy of canon, since it's obviously another version, and not just added information.

As for the Thestral question, Tinn is even more right than she thinks: the character needs to both witness the death directly, and process it emotionnally.

Which all sounds a bit like a plot hole nicely covered up. And the part about seeing death is ambiguous. What happens if the wizard sees someone die in an explosion, but shields his eyes?

 

I meant the latter when I said that one has to understand death to be able to see thestrals.

Well, so it seems that two factors have to be satisfied to be able to see thestrals. You have to see someone die directly and you have to be able to process that death emotionally, i.e, understand what it means.

The biggest plot hole of the series I felt was the Fidelius Charm.

Why ever did the Potters trust someone else with their security when James or Lily themselves could be have been the Secret Keeper?

I get the fact that they trusted Peter. But using Peter only puts him in more danger. The information can be forced out of him.

And if James had become the Secret Keeper then they could have had the best security one can have ever. An impenetrable security that can not be broken, no matter what.

 

Once upon a time there was a boy named Harry James Potter,
who lived and grew up alone with his parents in a house no one could find.

THE END


​

But yeah, other than the fact there would have been one book consisting solely of a prologue, I agree.

 

The fanon explanation is that the secret keeper cannot stay in the Fidelius'd location for any extended period without unraveling the charm.

 

So then James is the secret keeper for the Longbottoms, and Frank for the Potters. Problem solved.

 

^
No you see that couldn't have happened because that would have required some level of common sense. Or in J.K.'s place, actually working out your plot beforehand instead of just winging it.

 

What one can easily get from reading this list is that most of the plotholes come from the gimmicky stuff JKR introduced just to make the HP world seem so zany and funderful.

 

I consider Hagrids umberlla a huge plot hole. The fact that Hagrid could put pieces of his want in an Umbrella and perform magic has to say something. If you could embed your want into something more durable or practical. Like embedding your want into the hilt of a dagger. So if a retard of the likes of Harry can't think of a spell other than Expelliarmus to throw at his enemies, he could throw his dagger/wand.

Also, if Harry has the talent, patience, and the drive to teach a bunch of teenagers a spell as difficult as the Patronus, why can't he learn anything. The thing that made me go batshit in confusion though, was that if Molly Weasley, a witch who probably hadn't picked up her wand for non-household/sanitary purposes for decades, defeated Bellatrix Lestrange, then why was Bellatrix even considered dangerous?

Another thing is, why didn't James and Lily train to fight Voldemort for the inevitable confrontation that would issue for Harry's lives? Then theres the fact that they could have placed Harry in a warded room, with a house elf to insure that Harry would be fed and such, and fought off Voldemort together. Isn't it said in the books that James was extradonarily talented in Transfigurationa and Lily in Charms. If they were really as the teachers described, I'm preety sure that they could have beat off Voldemort together.

 

1) All evidence points to Hagrid wandbrella being completely fucking useless. At the age of fifty, he can barely perform simple spells despite having spent the last 30 years in a magical institution full of books for him to learn as much magic as he'd like. Anyway, I'm under the impression that it merely conceals and binds his wand together, like Ron Weasley's spellotape.

2) Harry being a great teacher is a complete fanon invention. There's nothing to say he did any more than explain the basics of the spell and let them get on with it, making his feat of third year commonplace and so further suggesting that Harry is little more than a mediocre wizard.

3) Bellatrix dies at Molly Weasley's hand because she had indigestion, heartburn, AIDS and one hand tied behind her back. There is no other rational explanation.

4) If you discount the DA (more like lessons anyway) and auror training (of which there is one off hand reference to) 'training' is a completely fanon invention. There is very little to suggest that wizards do anything but learn, a completely different thing.

Which makes only the third point about Bellatrix an actual plot hole and it's been noted perhaps over nine thousand times in the past.

 

I've gone over the Bellatrix thing a few times, even though most people don't seem convinced. MY contention is simply that in a life and death duel, there is no reason to use an offensive spell other than the Killing Curse. The only thing that makes the Death Eaters superior duelers is their willingness to use the Killing Curse and other illegal magic. The most obvious showcase is that exact duel. Bellatrix knew loads of dark magic, and look at all the good it did her. It's all pointless because you cannot block a killing curse, and even a near miss is still a kill.

It is true that you can block it with transfiguration, but the only person we've ever seen do that is Dumbledore, which suggests it's not that easy. Even then, it can also be done against the other curses, so the Killing Curse is still superior.

tl;dr The only advantage the Death Eaters have is psychological. If the good guys weren't idiot positivists, the Death Eaters would seem much less threatening.

 

Obviously not true. Even in canon we have seen many spells that can affect wide area (Pettigrew's explosion and Dumbledore's stunner), and these spells are clearly superior to the Killing Curse because they cannot be dodged. Also, there must be spells that can be cast faster or travel faster than AK. And not to mention the multitude of ways that Transfiguration could be used as a deadly weapon.

 

No canon evidence. Will people stop making fanon assertions.

 

James and Lily "defied" / escaped Lord Voldemort three times, supposedly; who's to say that they weren't trained? We just don't know, since on the night of their deaths, they were caught completely flat-footed. They never got to use whatever dueling skills they have.

Training to beat Voldemort is another thing altogether; we saw Voldemort duel Shacklebolt, McGonagall, and Slughorn at the same time, and hold them off with ease. James and Lily probably figured (correctly) that even with battle training, their odds of defeating Voldemort were too slim to contemplate.

Only the Molly/Bella thing comes close to proper plot hole-ness, and that one is borderline. I could say something like... [reaches into my metaphorical ass] ... "On her best day, dueling to kill, Molly had about a 15% chance of winning against Bellatrix. Guess the dice rolls were in her favor that day, eh?"