Errors, or plot points?

[tinyjo]

I read the new Potter on Sunday evening by illegal means (I plan to buy the paperback but didn't want to be spoilered) so it's possible these items weren't in the published text but there are two things nagging at me vaguely and I can't decide whether they're mistakes on JKR's part or are hooks for cunning tricks in the next book.

1) Harry rules out his father or his friends as possibilities for the Half Blood Prince based on the printing date of the book. Now this is slightly shaky logic because it assumes the prince was the first owner of the book but if we accept it then doesn't that also rule out Snape? He was at school at the same time as they were. If we rule out Snape on the basis of timing, I suspect Voldemort to be honest. Could even be another horcrux.

2) Kreacher and Dobby apparate and disapparate inside Hogwarts. I don't know why I've never noticed this before. Does the prohibition not apply to house-elves? Can either side use that information?

Comments

[angelsk.livejournal.com]

1. it was Snape's mothers before him.

2. It must be a different kind of magic.

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

1) As I just said below, for some reason I only associated the mother as an explanation for the choice of name, not the age of the book but that does makes sense.

2) That's cheating :) And the book does specifically use the word disapparate to describe it at one point.

[asciident]

on 2) yes, it does, but the series also agrees with angelsk: house-elves use a different kind of magic.

I don't know for sure of course, but it seems that house-elf-apparition may be permitted even if human-apparition isn't, to permit the house elves to perform their job better/faster. They have a lot of cleaning to do, even if it is the largest concentration of house elves in Britain!

[crschmidt.livejournal.com]

Prohibition doesn't apply to house-elves. Since they're not going to be at Hogwarts next year anyway, I don't know that it matters all that much. (And now I'm really hoping you finished the book.)

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

I did :) Has it actually been stated that the prohibition doesn't apply and I've just missed it? As you say, it's unlikely to matter, but you never know.

[crschmidt.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure, but I know that it's generally accepted and has been since before Book 5 (someone was going over their look of pre-book 5-rest-of-series expectations). I'd expect it would have been discussed around the time we first saw Dobby, if at all, but I don't remember off hand.

[jennifer.livejournal.com]

The book belonged to Snape's mother. I hope you've read this far, but Hermione mentions his mother twice - once early on when she suspects her of being the Prince, and again towards the very end when she explains the family line a bit.

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

Ah. I got the bit where Eileen was Snapes mother but for some reason just associated that as an explanation for why Snape picked the name, not for the age of the book.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Is there any evidence for this? She clearly didn't write her name in it. And I don't recall Snape saying it was his mother's book, just that he was the half blood prince. There doesn't seem to be any reason to think the book was his mother's other than its age.

And as for plot holes, I'm still annoyed that one of the Weasly boys gets out a bagful of money from Harry's account, not only without his authorization but without his knowledge, and does so because the security measures are so tight now that it takes a long time to get through them. Well, they may be tight, but they clearly don't care that the money you take out actually be yours...

[(Anonymous)]

Leora

Yeah but Bill works for Gringott's, so it's a bit different, right?

Paula Robinson

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

That might have explained it if he'd helped Harry jump the queue as 'twere but given that Harry hadn't even asked it's still odd - most banks don't let anyone, even employees, take out money without authorisation from the account holder.

I did vaguely wonder if it was some kind of plot thing - there's security measures but they're not protecting themselves from an inside job or something - but it didn't go anywhere so I think it was just a slip-up.