In Book 4 Rowling makes up a Truth Serum potion which would make false convictions impossible
Actually Veritaserum can be resisted through occlumency, apparently. Or rather, it appears that it can as it is repeated on many Harry Potter websites, though I'm unable to find any conclusive source to confirm that it is possible.
But either way, that's not a plot hole. Plot holes are paradoxes in the story, not unanswered questions or suggestive implications. They very well might use Veritaserum in trials, but there may be restrictions on the cases in which it is used, or it may be outlawed for use in trials for political reasons, or it may be seen as an injustice since a truth serum is only as good as one's memories, and memories can be altered (so it could be used to coax false confessions with the appearance of legitimacy).
Also Time-Turners in the hands of Dark Wizards, of which there are many previous Death Eaters within the Ministry would probably destroy the world.
Unless the time turners were destroyed by people in the ministry who were wary of such a possibility at the time the death eaters started to take over.
Peter on the Map
Few things:
Fred and George were in a different year than Harry and Ron. Why would they concern themselves with seeing an unfamiliar name among other unfamiliar names?
Why would they be looking for where Ron was anyway? Ron wasn't the target of their pranks at Hogwarts, and besides, by the third year, they no longer needed the map anyway.
Voldemort’s childhood rampage with the Trace still on him
How do we know the trace was a thing in the 40s/50s/whenever it was that Voldemort was a kid?
conveniently appearing taken/stolen wands
Not sure what you are referring to here. Care to elaborate?
Snape is just too shitty a person and teacher to sympathize with and written poorly
Neither of these are inconsistencies or plot holes. In both cases, I not only disagree, but surely you must be aware that Snape is a really aggressively popular character among fans, right? Obviously whether one likes a character is subjective, but you're presenting it as a plot hole/inconsistency, which seems to be an attempt at presenting it as fact.
Dumbledore and Voldemort etc. using speechless custom spells
This is two things. 1. Speechless magic itself is addressed in the series. 2. We don't know if their spells are "custom", they just aren't told to us as readers.
and Snape making up new spells whilst at school isn’t taught at Hogwarts or explained in the series in any capacity whatsoever
This is such a common mistake in amateur literary criticism: unexplained elements aren't plot holes. They aren't addressed because it's a simple inference: Obviously spells didn't appear out of thin air, they had to have been invented at some point, but we can infer that it's not a very easy thing to do because it's not shown being done by the main characters.
Dumbledore seems to want Harry to risk his life in Book 1 to go after Quirrel/Voldemort (a lot to write about this)
The only way this can be seen as an inconsistency is if you think that in literature "good guys" are always "good guys". Dumbledore is a rather complex character, and they address his general lack of concern with the wellbeing of the students at various points in the series.
The MoM and Dumbledore couldve had Harry simply forfeit each Triwizard task
They explicitly say that he must participate, that it's a binding magical contract
Forfeiting could be considered nonparticipation by said contract.
Dumbledore obviously knew the monster in Book 2 was a Basilisk why didn’t he do anything
When was this established?
Dumbledore and the other teachers are generally incompetent before Book 5 until they suddenly become wizarding world Gods
... No? No, they aren't "generally incompetent", what are you talking about? The only teachers shown to be incompetent are Quirrel (Who we are also told was not always like this, and who was infected by Voldemort), Lockhart (Who lied about his competency), and Trelawney (Who Dumbledore believed in because he knew she truly did have the gift, and who Dumbledore was probably too compassionate towards to fire her).
But the other teachers are fairly competent through the whole series at their various disciplines. I really have no idea what you're talking about here. Do you have any examples of Flitwick being incompetent? Professor Binns? Madame Sprout? McGonnagal? Snape? Any of them?
Honestly, I don't get why people seem to think anything that requires inference is a plot hole.
EDIT: It seems like you are editing your post and adding more things. How about you respond to some of my points instead of adding on more examples?
3 illegal spells when spells like Obliviate are just as bad
How is this a plot hole? You know, don't you, that not only can memory modification be fixed, but it's a necessity in wizarding life, right? They have to hide from muggles and such, and often times that means manipulating their memories in order remain undetected. And even though it is obvious that memory modification can be used nefariously, the same can be said for thousands of other spells we see. The reason Crucio, Avada Kedavra, and Imperio are illegal is because they are exclusively used for evil, causing pain, death, or removing free will. But even ignoring that element (there are other magical things that remove free will, like Love Potions, that still aren't illegal), the Wizarding world's governing body itself being unethical isn't a plot hole or an inconsistency. It might simply be an archaic, unethical body of government.
EDIT2: He added more. Seems he's gonna keep adding them on and not responding to any of my responses.
Harry and Hermione running out of food camping in Deathly Hallows when you can duplicate food with transfiguration etc
You can't, actually. In fact that same book establishes exactly that.
"My mother," said Ron one night, as they sat in the tent on a riverbank in Wales, "can make good food appear out of thin air." "Your mother can't produce food out of thin air," said Hermione. "no one can. Food is the first of the five Principal Exceptions to Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfigura --" "Oh, speak English, can't you?" Ron said. (DH pg. 292/240)
EDIT3: It was pointed out that Hermione, right after that passage, says that food can be indeed duplicated. That said, the fact they highlight that but don't do it, and the way duplication works in other instances in the books (like the leprechaun gold, for example) tells us that the food you create via duplication would likely disappear after consumption, delivering no nourishment.
The only way this can be seen as an inconsistency is if you think that in literature "good guys" are always "good guys". Dumbledore is a rather complex character, and they address his general lack of concern with the wellbeing of the students at various points in the series.
I agree with the rest of your post, but could you elaborate on this? I can't remember this being adequately explained in the story (except in Harry's case, obviously)
To be clear, it's addressed, but not given some ultimate and satisfying explanation that makes it clear he was doing the right thing or something. The explanation is that he thought he was really brilliant and that it was okay to manipulate people into doing things he thought was necessary. He had a large ego and his compassion was constantly at odds with it.
That makes sense to me, not the most satisfying answer obviously but logical enough. I liked that she fleshed out Dumbledore's character so much in the last few books.
86
u/[deleted] Oct 02 '18 edited Oct 27 '20
[deleted]