Just because something isn't explained it doesn't make it a plothole. This would imply that there are literally thousands of plotholes in the Potterverse (from lack of JKR explaining things). While there are many, many plotholes in HP, I really don't consider Voldemort flying a plothole. For one, it's not really relevant to the plot except for the scene it's in. Two, even then it doesn't really affect the scene. Voldemort might as well have been flying a broomstick in the escape scene and the effect would be the same, minus the shock value of seeing a wizard breaking a 'rule' of magic. We may have different views of what constitutes a plothole, but in my opinion this really isn't a plothole. I can think of tons of more relevant plotholes off the top of my head (some named in this thread) before I would get to why exactly Voldemort can fly. You are just supposed to accept it (and go "OMFG!!11 Voldemort can fly") and move on.

 

While I agree that in and of itself, it isn't a plothole, it does point to the problem with the books in that for the most part magic is just magic. There's no rhyme or reason why something happens. Overall, that cavalier attitude lessons the value of the books as anything other than the literary equivalent of a 'B movie.' That being said, there are some great B movies.

 

The way I look at it a plot hole is something happening that has been/will be directly contradicted. Simply not explaining something does not make a plot hole.

For example an author talks about a computer, do you care how the computer does what it does, or just the fact that it does what it does?

 

1) This irritates the hell out me: Ron and Dumbledore suddenly being able to speak Parseltongue, YEARS after hearing Harry speak it a few times.

2) The protections on Harry were dependent on him "being able to call the place where his mother's blood lived home" [paraphrased]. Wouldn't it have been smarter for the Order to move the Dursley family (and Harry and his protections) out of the country? Surely Dumbledore could have laid his hands on enough money (or used his contacts to arrange a tempting job for Vernon) to get them out of England entirely? Harry's address was stated clearly at his "trial" in book5. WHY was he left there, so that the DE could be waiting Right There when the wards came down?

3) What *possessed* Voldemort to throw an AK at the ONE person in all of history to have survived it? I really believe that Riddle (pre-October '81) was brilliant and powerful, as well as ruthless. After ten years of Unicorn blood and being disembodied, Voldemort was nuts. Just like in the classic tradition, hubris was crucial to his downfall. If he had simply ordered all of his followers in the area to cast destructive spells on Harry, the boy would never have had a chance. Instead, the Dark Lord Has To Make A Point. Idiot or madman? Toward the end, I think Voldemort was both.

4) Why did none of the Resistence ever use the Voldemort Name Curse to set up ambushes?

5) By the way, what did happen to Ollivander?

 

Didn't Hagrid say he flew in the first book? I doubt he had a broom, and JK hadn't thought of Thestrals yet. So could the two be related?

 

Hagrid flew with Sirius Black's flying motorbike.

 

Prophecies don't work that way.

Idiot? Never. Madman? Quite possibly. Villainous potential ruined by the source material? Definitely.

 

Voldemort threw the killing curse at Harry in books 4 and 7 to prove a point in front of his followers. It was to prove that Harry was nothing special and that the reason he lived as a child was because of his mother's spell alone. This did ruin him in the end, but his reasoning, especially for a madman, was pretty obvious.

 

That may very well have been the case...except a good number of his followers saw the shit storm that went down in the graveyard in book 4, and Harry's return from the dead in book 7. Now admittedly, I was sleep reading DH from the Forrest of Dean bit, waking up briefly to rant when Bella died, but I'm pretty sure death eater's saw the first book 7 avada fail when Harry woke up - Narcissa caught on soon enough at least. At that point, just kill the shit.

Idle curiosity, and perhaps if I'd paid attention it was explained adequately (doubtful though), but Harry died. No horcrux to call it a technicality - he died. Now even though he came back, that should have satisfied the whole one must kill the other bit of the prophecy, making the whole thing moot

On a final rant that has very little to do with DH, why not in first year, have Quirrel expelliarmus Harry in class one day (in class) and then shoot an AK right then and there. Boy's gone, leave Quirrel's body, and hey - no need for the stone when you've got horcruxes.

 

No, he wasn't. If JKR has anything to say about it, he was just unconscious. He would have died had he chosen to do so, but he didn't, so the prophecy was still quite valid.