Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Harry Potter, #4) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire discussion


1610 views
J.K. Rowlings Mistake

Comments (showing 1-50 of 107) (107 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3

♫Ñádïra *Mischief Managed!געראטן שאָדן!*♫ Hey,did anyone know that J.K. Rowling made a mistake in the Harry Potter series?


~Harry saw his parents die as a baby yes?
~So why couldn't he see thestrals years one ,two ,three , and four?
And....
~Harry saw Cedric Diggory die yes?
~So why didn't Harry see the thestrals at the end of his fourth year at Hogwarts when he gets in the carriages to get to the Hogwarts Express?

Think about it......You wouldn't think that J.K. would make a mistake would you?


message 2: by [deleted user] (new)

I thought it was only me that thought that about him seeing his mother die but not seeing thestrals lol.


georgia ☽ I remember thinking about that, and I looked it up. I think that he couldn't see them in years 1, 2, 3 and 4 because he hadn't come to terms with Cedric's death, and he couldn't remember his mother's properly. I might be wrong, but I think that's what I read :)


eilis GeOrG!a :) wrote: "I remember thinking about that, and I looked it up. I think that he couldn't see them in years 1, 2, 3 and 4 because he hadn't come to terms with Cedric's death, and he couldn't remember his mother..."

That makes sense :D


Lizzy He didn't see the thestrals in year one because the first years arrive by rowboat. They had the Flying Ford Anglia the second year. And the dementors the third year. I assume the Triwizard Tournament had something to do with Hogwarts not using the carriages to transport the students. It's not that he couldn't see them, he had just never had the chance to see them.


Emma Harrison He also saw Quirrell die. He did have chance to see them at the end of the fourth book. I always wondered the same thing...


♫Ñádïra *Mischief Managed!געראטן שאָדן!*♫ True..........but you are wrong on the count where Harry was unconscious when Quirrel died. He saw him crumble to pieces. And Harry did comprehend that his parents were dead. In his years one two three and four he knows and accepts,even though it is incredibly sad that his parents were dead. And Lizzy,as is saysin the fifth book,the thestrals roam around the Hogwarts grounds. So he could have seen them anytime.


message 8: by [deleted user] (new)

Okay here's what I think. J.K. Rowling didn't know she was going to write about Thestrals. So when she did she messed up and had to do some damage control so she said when people brought it up that Harry had to comprehend death and such....I think it's as simple as that.


Albert Riehle SEVEN beautifully choreographed books with the absolute minimal in problems of continuity and cohesion and still, someone always feels they have to poke a hole in some small continuity error they find. I suppose it makes a person feel special.

I look at it this way: Did it ruin the whole book/series for you? If not it's hardly worth mentioning. The idea that an author can write a seven book series without at least some of these issues is a foolish expectation. As long as it's not glaring, move along. Pointing such things out isn't a topic of discussion, it's a way of saying, "look at me!"


message 10: by Taygus (last edited Nov 15, 2012 08:51AM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Taygus To be honest Albert... It annoyed me to read about these thesttrals, that harry couldnt (but shoud've been able to) see before cedric, it made me grind my teeth, and it still nags me whenever I re-read the books.

So yes, it is something to discuss. However i dont see at as the first poster said 'surprised the j.k made a mistake.
I just wish, she chose another route than thestrals...


message 11: by [deleted user] (new)

Albert wrote: "SEVEN beautifully choreographed books with the absolute minimal in problems of continuity and cohesion and still, someone always feels they have to poke a hole in some small continuity error they f..."

Cody wrote: "As mentioned before, I do believe that JK Rowling explained is thusly: Harry was only a baby when his parents died, so he didn't grasp the concept of death. When Quirrell dies in the book, Harry is..."

1) Harry was a baby when Lily died. He hadn't quite understood the concept of death.
2) Maybe it doesn't count if you played a part in their death?
3) He hadn't quite come to terms with Cedric's death

Did it ruin the entire series? No. So why are you worrying over such a trivial thing?


Albert Riehle Arie wrote: "To be honest Albert... It annoyed me to read about these thesttrals, that harry couldnt (but shoud've been able to) see before cedric, it made me grind my teeth, and it still nags me whenever I re-..."

Reading a fantasy novel is a participatory endeavor. It's a two way street. The author has to give you a colorful, magical, wondrous world to lose yourself inside, and then you have to let go and get lost inside it. I daresay Rowling did her job and did it quite well. If you allow yourself to get lost in her world you might not even notice this issue, if you hold yourself back and try to do the math along the way, I suppose they stick in your craw. But these books aren't written to be enjoyed in a scientific/mathematical way. They are written as a playground for your imagination. To me, this is like taking your math book out to recess instead of playing kickball with the rest of the kids.


Carina When this error was first pointed out to me I took it to mean that in regards to his mother Harry didn't see the death - he saw the green flash and things but never actually saw her die (I may be splitting hairs but hey this is my theory so I can do that!!).

As previously mentioned in years 1 and 2 Harry didn't arrive via the carriages so that negates those.

Quirrel dying - I thought Harry blacked out part way through so Quirrel was still alive (may be wrong but again that is how I interpreted it).

Because Harry had never 'cleanly' seen a death when he travelled in the carriages in books 3 and 4 Harry wouldn't be able to see them.

Cedrics death - I took it that Harry was so broken up he wasn't paying any attention, he was buried in his grief. Perhaps you need to fully understand it I don't know but either of those work as to why he didn't see them until book 5.

I think in terms of plot holes this is a small one so it has never overly bothered me.


message 14: by Emma (new) - rated it 5 stars

Emma Harrison Christ, why does everyone get so nasty on these threads? Someone posed a question and people reply, why start moaning about the question, why even comment? I thought it was a good point, and in no way does the person posting the point say it ruins the books...


Mitali ♫Ñádïra-Masτêr öf the ƒ£ute♫≥←{♥ wrote: "True..........but you are wrong on the count where Harry was unconscious when Quirrel died. He saw him crumble to pieces."

Quirrell did not crumble to pieces in the book. That was an added effect in the movies, which deviate from canon in many major ways. In the book, Harry blacked out while Quirrell was still alive, and had to ask Dumbledore about what happened to Quirrell later on.


message 16: by R (new) - rated it 4 stars

R Albert wrote: "Arie wrote: "To be honest Albert... It annoyed me to read about these thesttrals, that harry couldnt (but shoud've been able to) see before cedric, it made me grind my teeth, and it still nags me w..."

You do know that a magical world still has to obey its own rules and be consistent within itself right? The original poster has a right to question if he/she sees a plot hole. The world still has to make sense or it'll end up like Twilight where the author broke her own rules. And nobody likes it when that happens.


Albert Riehle Emma wrote: "Christ, why does everyone get so nasty on these threads? Someone posed a question and people reply, why start moaning about the question, why even comment? I thought it was a good point, and in no ..."

Just because you think it's a good point doesn't make it one, just as others thinking its kind of a silly point doesn't make it so. When you post your opinions online you do so understanding that people will disagree with you. If you don't, then you've got no business posting. It wouldn't be much of a discussion forum if everyone agreed. If you don't like reading opinions that are contrary to your own, the internet is going to be a tough place for you. Disagreeing isn't nasty. Calling someone out for what others might see as nitpicking isn't nastiness. It's an opinion every bit as valid as the original one and your own.


message 18: by Emma (new) - rated it 5 stars

Emma Harrison Albert wrote: "Emma wrote: "Christ, why does everyone get so nasty on these threads? Someone posed a question and people reply, why start moaning about the question, why even comment? I thought it was a good poin..."

Righto Albert.


Karissa It's because to see one, it the death would have had to sink in emotionally! It hadn't for Harry, and it might not fully have sunk in for Cedric at the end of the 4th year.


Kelly Knapp Does it really matter that we don't learn about the thestrals earlier? Does it really matter that an author, who wrote more than 2000 pages over seven parts made a mistake about ONE CREATURE out of many dozens?

I will not deny that I like to look for the little errors, in books and on TV. Slight discontinuety reminds me that even the most brilliant author or actor or writer still makes mistakes. They don't seem to be up on a pedestal. But at the same time, I don't let these minor errors disturb my enjoyment of the overall story. If it bothers you greatly, maybe you should run with it and write a fanfic showing how you think it would have changed the story.

However, any question asked is valid and those who answer should do so with respect.


message 21: by Jeni (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jeni In the book, Quirrell isn't blown to dust. That was a movie thing only. In the book, Harry is unconscious and Voldemort "leaves Quirrell for dead." For all we know, he's permanently in St. Mungo's.

As for the Thestrals, knowing someone died before you were aware of it and watching someone die in front of you are two different things entirely.

Luna says she has always been able to see them, but then again, she's a very open-minded and accepting witch who has come to terms with watching her mother die.

Harry has to come out of the shock of Cedric's death and accept he's gone before the Thestrals are visible. Your mind must make the necessary connection.

My grandfather died when I was a baby, but knowing that has always just been a fact. Being with my grandmother as she passed was an entirely different thing. Your vision of death is altered.

Harry had to make that connection in order to realize the Thestrals were there.


Vermin Supreme™ I completely agree with Jeni. The movie isn't what we're discussing here; it's the book. In the movie Quirrell dies right then and there; not in the novel. And Harry needed to come to terms with Cedric's death. Right after someone dies you tend to go into denial, so Harry must have overcome that over the summer.

Also, he was a child when his mother died, and only gets vivid flashbacks. Honestly, would you remember seeing your mother die when you were like a year old? Probably not. Just that flash of green.

Anyway, I honestly don't know why we're poking at this small detail. It's completely explained anyways. I can't find anything wrong or not correct with the Threstals.

Also, they don't just roam the grounds. That would freak people out. J.K clearly states that they live in the Forbidden Forest.


message 23: by Leah (new) - added it

Leah Apparently the death has to "sink in"


Joanne Emma wrote: "He also saw Quirrell die. He did have chance to see them at the end of the fourth book. I always wondered the same thing..."

In the book, he didn't see Quirrell die. Professor Dumbledore told Harry that Quirrell had died after he work up in the hospital wing.


Joanne As far as I'm concerned, J. K. Rowling's biggest mistake was ending this series. Someone else is writing James Potter's (Harry's son) adventures. I'm trying to get ahold of these books so I can give them a try.

Has anyone else read them? Comments?


message 26: by Mitali (last edited Nov 16, 2012 11:05PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mitali Joanne wrote: "As far as I'm concerned, J. K. Rowling's biggest mistake was ending this series. Someone else is writing James Potter's (Harry's son) adventures. I'm trying to get ahold of these books so I can g..."

I assume you're talking about the James Potter books by G. Norman Lippert. If so, that's fanfiction, not commercial books (for obvious reasons regarding copyright). You can download and read them for free from here: http://www.jamespotterseries.com/
Edit: They're even available here on Goodreads - follow the links from the author's page: http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/...

I have read the first one, and it's pretty good, though not in the same league as the original HP books, of course.


Taygus Albert wrote: "Emma wrote: "Christ, why does everyone get so nasty on these threads? Someone posed a question and people reply, why start moaning about the question, why even comment? I thought it was a good poin..."

Well i used to do maths for fun, so what can I say.
Did it entirely stop me from enjoying the series? No. Did it grate on me? Yes.
I've read many detailed series, some with obvious mistakes, some not. I do not think she needed these thestrals and could've and should've left them out.


Kill the Spare Lizzy wrote: "He didn't see the thestrals in year one because the first years arrive by rowboat. They had the Flying Ford Anglia the second year. And the dementors the third year. I assume the Triwizard Tourn..."

Yeah.. That IS the reason.. It's not about Cedric's death not sinking in or anything.. They just didn't encounter the thestrals all those years!


Mitali Kill the Spare wrote: "Yeah.. That IS the reason.. It's not about Cedric's death not sinking in or anything.. They just didn't encounter the thestrals all those years!"

Harry encountered the thestral-driven carriages when arriving at school during years three and four, and while leaving school all four years before year five. That's why he thought that the carriages were driven on their own, and that's why he was so shocked to see the thestrals there.


message 30: by Brooke (last edited Nov 19, 2012 02:49PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Brooke Cedric, thestrals...yeah, huge, glaring mistake.


Fatema yeah... i think tht too


message 32: by Aisy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Aisy HA!


message 33: by Jeni (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jeni Definitely have to have the death sink in. J.K. Rowling mentions this several times herself.

Also, here's an interesting article on the HP wiki. The Elder Wand core is made of a Thestral Hair.

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/The...


Megan Hodgson She may speak to this when she gets to that part in Pottermore. So if you all want to be patient until that point then it may be answered then!


Rebecca Schmidt If you guys are interested, here's a website with all the mistakes:

http://www.mugglenet.com/books/mistak...


message 36: by Laura (last edited Nov 23, 2012 04:30PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Laura I believe the correct definition of a person who can see Thestrals, is not someone who has seen death, but someone who has seen another person die and registered what they were seeing as death. When Harry was one he wouldn't have known his parents were dead when he saw them, he would have just thought; 'Oh, look Mum fell down.' But in the fourth book he saw Cedric's dead body and knew he was dead. That's why he couldn't see the Thestrals until his fifth year.


Danielle Arie wrote: "Albert wrote: "Emma wrote: "Christ, why does everyone get so nasty on these threads? Someone posed a question and people reply, why start moaning about the question, why even comment? I thought it ..."

I don't think she should have left the thestrals out, since they played a major part in getting everyone to the ministry at the end of book 5.


message 38: by Taygus (last edited Nov 21, 2012 09:22AM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Taygus I'm sure their could've been other magical creatures to do that, maybe a return of the hippogriff... anything s:

Thanks or the link Rebecca =]


message 39: by [deleted user] (new)

♫Ñádïra-Masτêr öf the ƒ£ute♫≥←{♥ wrote: "Hey,did anyone know that J.K. Rowling made a mistake in the Harry Potter series?


~Harry saw his parents die as a baby yes?
~So why couldn't he see thestrals years one ,two ,three , and four?
And...."


that is so true!!! LOL


Amelia I think a person can only see Thestrals when they can fully comprehend that what they are seeing is death. At the age of one, Harry did not understand what was happening to his parents, and so it was only upon Cedric's death that he could see the Thestrals.


message 41: by [deleted user] (new)

I thought it was because he had no memory of his parents dying, he couldn't remember. Sure, he saw it, but one's memory is not sufficient enough to recall such a tragic event when they're barely a year old.Plus, a baby cannot comprehend death, a concept which is also difficult for child to comprehend.


♫Ñádïra *Mischief Managed!געראטן שאָדן!*♫ Okay,I understand what you are all saying,how it's a small mistake,it doesn't really matter...I get that. All I was doing was just seeing others views of this situation. I have read each book eight times and I love it still,it can't get boring. I have read it so many times that I was looking everywhere for something I never saw before. Recently I found this. That Harry couldn't see the thestrals years one,two,three and four. I wanted to see what people thought about this. It is a simple matter of discussion. I think that hearing others views of this would be interesting to my knowledge of Harry Potter. Some will agree with me,some won't. I am fully able to accept that. I realize that her glitch was little. Tiny. But I saw it and I wanted to find the answer. Either there is or there isn't but I wanted to see what all of you thought anyway. So whatever you say,I am ready to accept. Just don't start with the fighting. That is not what this thread is about. Thanks......


message 43: by Tara (new) - rated it 4 stars

Tara Jeni wrote: "In the book, Quirrell isn't blown to dust. That was a movie thing only. In the book, Harry is unconscious and Voldemort "leaves Quirrell for dead." For all we know, he's permanently in St. Mungo's..."

well said...


Garry Hodgson Sorry but this just sprang to mind for this discussion lol

Frink: Yes, over here, n'hey, n'hey. In episode BF12, you were battling barbarians while riding a winged Appaloosa, yet in the very next scene, my dear, you're clearly atop a winged Arabian. Please do explain it.
Lawless: Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it.
Frink: I see, all right, yes, but in episode AG4 --
Lawless: Wizard. Frink: Aw, for glaven out loud.


Farheen why are u people repeating the same thing again and again??the one who started the discussion got what she wanted.......now repeating the only thing.."death has to sink in..."won't do any good...looking at everyone's point of view is good......but rubbing the whole thing again and again isn't.......so it is that i read the whole thread and appreciate all your views.....and here is mine:even the greatest writers can make a mistake.... (if u think it is one)


Julia Simpson-Urrutia ♫Ñádïra-Masτêr öf the ƒ£ute♫≥←{♥ wrote: "Hey,did anyone know that J.K. Rowling made a mistake in the Harry Potter series?


~Harry saw his parents die as a baby yes?
~So why couldn't he see thestrals years one ,two ,three , and four?
And...."



Julia Simpson-Urrutia All writers make mistakes. : )


Farheen ♫Ñádïra-Masτêr öf the ƒ£ute♫≥←{♥ wrote: "Well......do you?"

No......atleast it doesn't matter so much.....


« previous 1 3
back to top

all discussions on this book | post a new topic


Books mentioned in this topic

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (other topics)