Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
discussion
Mistakes made by J.K. Rowling
Yeah grammar issues do count if you've found some, but I'm just rubbish at spotting stuff like that!
OK, I usually just pass this off as Ron's mistake rather than Rowling's but this could be one I guess:In Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire the students of Hogwarts were waiting for the visitors from Beauxbatons and Durmstrang to arrive and Harry, Ron and Hermione were discussing how they might be getting there. At one point Ron says:
"Maybe they'll apparate, maybe your allowed to do it under seventeen where they come from."
(BTW I don't know what the exact quote is so that might not be precisely right)
The rules of the tournament state that only students that are of age - seventeen or older - can enter the tournament, so they wouldn't have to be able to do under seventeen because they would all be seventeen or over anyway! I know this is a tiny thing and it doesn't matter at all and it's probably just Ron getting it wrong, but I just noticed it and thought I might point it out. :)
Doesn't Fluer little sister come with so some of the people that come aren't over the age of 17 anyway
Oh, I never thought about that. I never actually thought she came with them to watch or compete or anything, she was just brought there for the second task because they needed the thing Fleur would miss most. Maybe I'm wrong though.
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..."
>sigh< No. See posts #99. #126. HARRY IS NOT A HORCRUX! Or horrorcrux, for that matter.
Daisy.c wrote: "Oh, I never thought about that. I never actually thought she came with them to watch or compete or anything, she was just brought there for the second task because they needed the thing Fleur would..."How could they know who is going to compete before the GOF could actually choose someone. And for argument's sake lets assume that it was pre-decided that Fleur would be the one to compete and no one else from Beauxbaton had put in their names, it still does not explain how they would have known what the 2nd task was about.
I think in the movie they showed her as a mascot (I am not sure though), which kind of made sense to me but nothing like that was mentioned in the book.
I guess people below age were also allowed to attend the Tri-wizard championship but not participate in it. But Ron, being Ron would not have thought of all this. I am inclined to believe that it was intentional by Rowling to remind us time and again how apparating within Hogwarts' premise was not possible in normal circumstances.
^^ I'm sure I remember in the book somewhere that there were many students from Beauxton cause they were all crying that it wasn't them or something I'll have to have a look
Ayah wrote: "^^ I'm sure I remember in the book somewhere that there were many students from Beauxton cause they were all crying that it wasn't them or something I'll have to have a look"
Yes, there were many people from both Beauxbaton and Durmstrang. I was stating a hypothetical situation where Beauxbaton intended only Fleur to compete from their side and hence were sure about her being chosen by GOF.
i meant to say that there were many student from Beauxton that put there name in the GOF and I don't think they could of guessed that Fluer would be the one to get throughall though they could have predicted that Krum would get it but I don't think they brought anyone for him
Ayah wrote: "i meant to say that there were many student from Beauxton that put there name in the GOF and I don't think they could of guessed that Fluer would be the one to get throughall though they could h..."
Ah.. I misunderstood earlier and.. you are right.. just looked it up, many from Beauxbaton had put in their names. But, the point still stands, no one from the Schools could have known what 2nd task was before coming to Hogwarts
There was plenty of time between the selection of the champions and the second task to bring in anyone or anything necessary to be the thing most valued by that champion. While Apperation wasn't possible into Hogwarts--and Ron or Harry mentioning this and being corrected by Hermione was one of the on-going gags throughout the series--it was possible to use other methods such as a Portkey to bring others in.
Well said Jeanie :)
That's OK, it would take a while to read through all the comments! I was just saying that because it just seems to me as if that point has been made a million times, lol!
Another mistake- in Harry Potter and the philosophers stone at the ending in the giant chess game- she says the knight moves one space- but they can't they can only move four spaces at a time in an L-shape!
Wow, well spotted! I've never noticed that, I'll have to see if I can in the book . . .
thanks- I don't usually notice anything- I guess the years of being a nerd in chess club have finally paid off!!! hehe
Jeanie wrote: "B wrote: "What about grammar issues? I've found two so far, and theyre both the same issue. I think the first one is in the second or third book, where someone's talking about the Quidditch team an..."Ohhhh!!! Thank you! i was wondering if that might be the case but i know nothing about American vs British grammar, so... Thanks =)
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 reasoning for this could be that the Horcrux would only be destroyed if Harry died, because then Harry wasn't tethered to life by his blood in Voldemort's body. The phoenix tears kept Harry alive, so the Horcrux would have stayed alive too.
Emily wrote: "Another mistake- in Harry Potter and the philosophers stone at the ending in the giant chess game- she says the knight moves one space- but they can't they can only move four spaces at a time in an..."I read through this part and couldn't see this mistake anywhere, do you think you could post the sentence in which it says that, Emily? I'm just really curious about this! Or if anyone else has spotted it could you please post the quote. Thanks!
I don't have a copy with me at the moment but I will as soon as I get one- sorry!
Emily wrote: "I don't have a copy with me at the moment but I will as soon as I get one- sorry!"It says "he stepped forward and the queen pounced" I took that to mean he stepped forward once- I could be wrong! P206 in my copy!
Ohhh, right I see it now. Thanks Emily!I (well, my sister) also spotted another one there:
'"That's chess!" snapped Ron. "You've got to make some sacrifices! I take one step forward and she'll take me - that leaves you free to checkmate the king, Harry!"'
On pg 205 of Philosopher's Stone. Ron was a knight in the game so, if Emily's quote wasn't already a mistake, this one definitely is. Maybe J.K should have gone too chess club too, lol!
Daisy wrote: "This may just be Hagrid trying to make himself all impressive or something, but it could be a mistake:In Philosopher's Stone Hagrid says, "Some say he's [voldemort] still out there biding his tim..."
In the end of Philosopher's stone... Volemort came at last...and then gone again.... proving that he is still alive... to come back!
Kalpit wrote: "Daisy wrote: "This may just be Hagrid trying to make himself all impressive or something, but it could be a mistake:In Philosopher's Stone Hagrid says, "Some say he's [voldemort] still out there ..."
barely alive lol
Here is one;IN PHILOSOPHERS STONE,HAGRID SAYS JAMES POTTER WAS HEADBOY BUT IN ORDER OF THE PHOENIX,IT IS SAID JAMES WASN'T EVEN A PREFECT
THE PRINCE wrote: "Here is one;IN PHILOSOPHERS STONE,HAGRID SAYS JAMES POTTER WAS HEADBOY BUT IN ORDER OF THE PHOENIX,IT IS SAID JAMES WASN'T EVEN A PREFECT"
Interesting. I never noticed that, but Sirius did say James matured in his seventh year, and I didn't think you had to be a Prefect to be Head Boy.
In the movie, after Ron had destroyed the locket, he says something like, "there's three to go". Why is there three? Ain't there supposed to be four more? The goblet, tiara, basilisk and Harry?
Meeralala wrote: "In the movie, after Ron had destroyed the locket, he says something like, "there's three to go". Why is there three? Ain't there supposed to be four more? The goblet, tiara, basilisk and Harry?"Yes, technically, I guess you're right; there were four, but Harry and Ron didn't know Harry was a horcrux at that point, so they thought there were only three left. :)
Daisy wrote: "Meeralala wrote: "In the movie, after Ron had destroyed the locket, he says something like, "there's three to go". Why is there three? Ain't there supposed to be four more? The goblet, tiara, basi..."But surely they knew there are all 7 horcruxes.. :|
Nope. They only knew about the six horcruxes Voldermort intentionally made. Harry was an accidental horcrux that only Dumbledore and Snape knew about.
Yeh they say his soul was in 7 parts but 1 of them was in his body.
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..."
But the phoenix tears healed him so he didn't completely die like he had to in the last book.
Ar wrote: " Daisy.c wrote: It probably was Voldemort's wand , because where would Wormtail have got a wand? The second line is an excerpt from the book which states the 'short man' a.k.a Wormtail lit 'his' w..."
But where does Voldemort get his wand? Where has he been keeping it ALL these years WITHOUT a body. By his own words he was "less than nothing" after the Potters' murder. Wouldn't his wand have been left in the Potters' cottage?
How does he keep it on his 'person' all this time?
Book 1:Ron says, "Gryffindor hasn't won a Quidditch match since Charlie left."
In that book, Percy is in his 5th year and if Charlie is 3 years older than Percy, he left last year. Which means that Ron is saying...
"We haven't won a Quidditch match since last year."
Elephant wrote: "Book 1:Ron says, "Gryffindor hasn't won a Quidditch match since Charlie left."
In that book, Percy is in his 5th year and if Charlie is 3 years older than Percy, he left last year. Which means tha..."
I never noticed that but it is really funny!!!
Elephant wrote: "Book 1:Ron says, "Gryffindor hasn't won a Quidditch match since Charlie left."
In that book, Percy is in his 5th year and if Charlie is 3 years older than Percy, he left last year. Which means tha..."
lol! Well spotted!
Ahamed wrote: "But where does Voldemort get his wand? Where has he been keeping it ALL these years WITHOUT a body. By his own words he was "less than nothing" after the Potters' murder. Wouldn't his wand have been left in the Potters' cottage? How does he keep it on his 'person' all this time?"
This is the mistake that probably confuses me most. You make a good point; I don't know how Voldermort would have kept a wand with him while he had no body, but I guess it's confusing enough that anyone can exist without a body! As much as I hate to say it; maybe we should just accept that Wormtail having a wand is a mistake!
Elephant wrote: "Book 1:Ron says, "Gryffindor hasn't won a Quidditch match since Charlie left."
In that book, Percy is in his 5th year and if Charlie is 3 years older than Percy, he left last year. Which means tha..."
Lol damn Gryffindors, thinking they own the place.
Daisy wrote: "Ahamed wrote: "But where does Voldemort get his wand? Where has he been keeping it ALL these years WITHOUT a body. By his own words he was "less than nothing" after the Potters' murder. Wouldn't hi..."Yes. It's a mistake that's been bugging me for ages. I DO think Wormtail used Voldemort's want to kill Cedric or he wouldn't have reappeared with the PI.
In POA we learn the womping willow was planted for Lupin. In GOF we're told that Molly took a great interest in the tree because it had been planted after her time at Hogwarts. That would mean Molly is several (at LEAST 7) years older than Lupin, correct? But in OTP you have Lupin soothing Molly's worries by telling her she doesn't know what it was like in the Order last time because she's too young. Nit-picky and unimportant, but it's a mistake.
Daisy wrote: "What's a PI? :)"Priori Incantem (sp?). When Voldemort's wand regurgitates old kills.
Cassandra wrote: "In POA we learn the womping willow was planted for Lupin. In GOF we're told that Molly took a great interest in the tree because it had been planted after her time at Hogwarts. That would mean Moll..."Ooh, that's a good one! But did Lupin actually say that she was too young? I thought he just said she wasn't in the Order back then.
Ahamed515 wrote: "Daisy wrote: "What's a PI? :)"Priori Incantem (sp?). When Voldemort's wand regurgitates old kills."
Oh, thanks!
Daisy wrote: "Cassandra wrote: "In POA we learn the womping willow was planted for Lupin. In GOF we're told that Molly took a great interest in the tree because it had been planted after her time at Hogwarts. Th..."I believe you're right Daisy. He said she wasn't in the order then. She couldn't have been that much younger because in HBP we also learn that Molly and Arthur got married during Voldemort's last reign of terror at least 15/20 yrs ago. Remember when she was complaining that Fleur and Bill were rushing to get married because of Voldemort? Someone reminded her that she and Arthur did the same thing last time so we was at least old enough to be married.
That makes sense Ahamed, you guys are so clever!!
Evojanus wrote: "HP & the Prisoner of AzkabanTime 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 ..."
In the time paradox, the fact that in the second "dimension" he went back at all means that in the first dimension it occurs then. Both realities exist seamlessly and so the first time he sees himself from the second time.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (other topics)Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (other topics)
British and American English treat collective nouns differently. The British treat them as straight plurals while Americans treat it as a singular noun. The American editions changed much of the grammar to standard American English, but not every item was changed.