Plot holes in GoF and JK leading us up the garden path.

[Hollydaze]

No: HPFGUIDX 32378

Cindy wrote:
> So to fix this, she had to go back, write the Moody kidnap bit 
> in "Mayhem at the Ministry," and then write some scenes for Fake 
> Moody so his involvement in the Goblet incident doesn't come out of
> nowhere.  So she adds in the Draco the Bouncing Ferret stuff and 
> the Unforgivable Curses business to establish Moody as Harry's 
> friend and a great teacher before Fake Moody puts Harry's name in 
> the Goblet. She would also have to go back and conceive everything 
> about Crouch Jr. escaping at the Quidditch World Cup to have Moody's 
> kidnapping make sense.  (Maybe this explains the confusion about 
> the curse/murder language, too).
<SNIP>

She says she was halfway through the book, and that that bit then became 1 third through the book. Doesn't that mean that most of the "getting rid" of the plot hole would have had to have taken place in the later stages of the book then (to be able to push it towards the beginning), even if the problem was in the first half (now the first third). Also, JK has said that the missing "Weasley Cousin" was part of the plot hole as that was why she was scrapped so how does she fit in. JK has also said the Rita didn't feature much before she discovered the plot hole, but when she did, Rita took on more of the role that the Weasley Cousin would have done. What's all that about? I have absolutely no idea and Cindy seems to have a better idea of plot holes than me so I'm not going to speculate on what the problem might have been.

Do you think she'll tell us once the series is over because that is the kind of thing that would drive an obsessive HP fan made (it has been driving me mad for ages!)

Barkeep in Diagon Alley wrote:
> I, too, believe the Moody arc in GoF is the big plot hole. Why is 
> Fake Moody teaching the students about the Unforgivables? Doesn't 
> that play against LV's plans for Harry? Or does LV *want* Harry to 
> know what these are, so there is a greater challenge for LV at the 
> graveyard? Or does Dumbledore ask Fake Moody to teach these curses,
> and FM complies to avoid Dumbledore's wrath? But there has never 
> been any Dumbledore Wrath at teachers (as far as the text shows).

(Much as I hate to bring this subject up AGAIN please bare with me).
Myself and my mum have been puzzling over this as it doesn't seem to make much sense and my mum came to the conclusion that it all comes back to that scene with the deatheaters at the end of the book, with the three deatheaters (Faithful -F-, Coward -C- and Traitor -T-). I'm not so sure about who is what anymore due to all the discussion although I used to think (and still HOPE it is true) that Snape is the traitor as I want him as a good guy. We think that this is a typical "JK leading us up the garden path". Everything in book 4 point towards it being:
Crouch Jr = F, Karkaroff = C and Snape = T, as we are told that Snape turned back to Dumbledore's side, we know that Karkaroff fled, and we know that it was Crouch Jr who put Harry's name in the cup and set up everything for the Port key incident. However there is a lot of stuff that we are conveniently NOT told:

We don't know WHY Dumbledore trusts Snape.
We don't know the reason that Karkaroff fled (only the opinion of a secondary source).
We don't know that Bagman wasn't a death eater (he says he wasn't but lets face it that Jury were VERY biased, so who's to say he isn't one of the people who went free?)
We know that Crouch DID teach Harry to fight of the Imperious Curse (Why?)
We don't even know for definite that it was the Goblins that caused Bagman to flee (that too is the opinion of a secondary source).
Voldemort never actually said who each one was (which is where the problem stems from)

Basically this is the kind of thing that strikes me as JK giving us enough info to jump to our own conclusions but not enough (for everyone) to jump to the right conclusion. She has done it before, book 1 she gave us enough info to jump to the conclusion it was Snape trying to get the stone and then we found out it was Quirrel. Book 2 she (up until the PP) gave us enough info to make us think Draco was the Heir of Slytherin, then she even tried to fool us into thinking it was Hagrid. Misunderstanding is the whole idea of book three as we are fed enough info through out the book to believe that Sirius is a bad guy, then at the end we find out we are totally wrong.

As she seems to have done this in every book so far it would not surprise me for her to do something similar with a story line over moe than 1 book and this seems the perfect thing to do it with.

There are other examples, the shipping debates being a perfect example as we are not told everything that went on in the argument between Ron and Hermione. We also have not actually been TOLD that Ron likes Hermione, that Harry likes Hermione or that Hermione has feelings for either of them. YES it has been implied in the stories through the use of words like "jealous" and the way that the characters act but it has not ever been categorically stated which means that up until the point that it is undeniably confirmed that So and so loves Such and such, then we can not definitely say who it is. Even this "Snape wants the DADA job" is a mini "garden path", we don't know whether he does or not as we have never head him say so, only from secondary sources and his pride in his potions seems to disprove this (Having a go at Lockhart because Snape "(is) the potions master in (Hogwarts) school".

Basically what I'm saying is that I think this is the type of thing that we can't really discuss in full until we know for DEFINATE if Crouch is the faithful servant or if he is something else (maybe none of them?)  

Can anyone think of any other "leading up the garden path" that JK has done so far as I think this is one of the most interesting things about the books.

HOLLYDAZE!!!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]