Some questions on the Harry Potter series?

Question

I just re-read the whole series. Some minor details kind of bothered me so could someone explain these things to me.

In the beginning of "Prisoner of Azkaban", Harry uses the lighting spell "Lumos" while he's studying at the Dursley's. Why didn't the Trace of the Ministry went off? He's the only wizard in that place so surely the Ministry should've noticed the underage magic, right?

The seventh book stays the Invisibility Cloak is impervious to all enchantments. But in several books, it has been proven it can be. E.g In book 6, Malfoy used the Petrificus Totalus curse on Harry while he's hiding under the cloak. In book 4, Crouch, posing as "Moody," can see through the invisibility cloak. In the Chamber of Secrets, "The contents of Harry's trunk had been thrown everywhere. His cloak lay ripped on the floor." Can anyone explain this...?

How did Dumbledore beat Grindelwald in the Great Battle? Grindelwald is the master of the Elder Wand, which by definition cannot be defeated. Even Dumbledore admits it's too powerful a weapon. So how did Dumbledore defeat it?

Maybe I'm looking too much into the context. But can anyone answer me these questions? I'm a little bugged in minor inconsistencies in every book I read so...

Answer 1

That's only in the film, not in the book. It would have just been for dramatic effect.



The invisibility cloak is impervious to all spells. Mad-eye wasn't casting a spell to see through the cloak. As for Malfoy, he used the spell on Harry, not on the cloak. You can see the cloak when Harry isn't wearing it, hence why you can see it lying on the floor, ripped.



As for how did Dumbledore beat Grindlewald, all he would have had to do was disarm him. Dumbledore was master of the elder wand, and Malfoy disarmed Dumbledore, thereby becoming the master. He didn't have to kill him - which he obviously didn't, because Voldemort visited him - he just had to outsmart him, which I'm sure Dumbledore is capable of.

Answer 2

First one is just in the film -_- they don't really think about the details.



As for the second question, it is only resistant to jinxes, hexes, and other spells which would normally damage or otherwise render a normal Invisibility cloak ineffective. For example, just before the Battle of Hogwarts, while Harry, Ron, and Hermione were huddled under it, a Death Eater's Summoning Charm had no effect on removing the Cloak of Invisibility.



For the third question, it was the most powerful wand ever made, but it didn't make the bearer unbeatable. It just made them a lot harder to beat. Which only makes Dumbledore's win that much more evidence of his personal power. Although the wand was rumoured to be unbeatable, in Dumbledore's commentary on The Tale of The Three Brothers, in The Tales of Beedle the Bard, he commented that the Elder Wand, while being immensely powerful, had never been unbeatable, as it had been beaten hundreds of times. The whole "unbeatable" thing was probably started by one of the wand's owners to make others less excited to try to fight for control of it. Besides, even if unbeatable when being wielded, all Dumbledore had to do was trick Grindelwald into setting it down for a second, or physically knock it out of his hand without magic (maybe a gut punch or an aikido arm twist). Then he could finish him off with ease.



Hope I helped :)

Answer 3

I think the Lumos is only on the Film, not in the book & If u want my advice try to take the movie lightly coz they have a LawwwwwTtttttt of stupid added stuff that makes no sense!





Impervious means that its not a protego cloak or full defence item. its impervious to time as other made cloaks wear off in time which Harry's does not as the Potters had it for generations I suppose ripped means ripped out of the trunk not its ripped & torn apart.



That actually explains that the Greater Wizard Dumbledore was. the wand is named Unbeatable, but its actually not. otherwise none would have had it second. its just a powerful weapon that adds the wizards capability more.



njoy!

Answer 4

Ok don't listen to any of these people J.K. Rowling just got into this huge lawsuit with a teacher over writing a encyclopedia to Harry Potter she won fo course. She is possibly going to write it After spending time with her family. The teacher was writing a encyclopedia about harry potter but J.K Rowling said if he did she would not write it as that would take all the fun out of it. The book will tell about who got married what each kid is like mostly back stories and biography's about all the characters but that's a few years from know at least.

Answer 5

there are going to be minor inconsistancies in novels because once they get so long it is hard for the author to remember exactly what was said even to the point where, in series i once read a scene i in was used in one book, then used again in the same series, just two books later. Not only that but sometimes they even start repeating phrasing, and decriptive characteristics.

I am not saying that there are lots in the harry potter series, but maybe a few.



Beyond that are the injustices of movies, they never can quite get the book right. That and there are time limits. (you know for the run time of a movie), and the whole edited bit. They have to condense it down to where it has less than a three hour plot, and sadly in that editing you can lose important details. That and you also have to realize how many different director have made these movies.

Answer 6

Lumos is a spell which is of very little harm... It might be sake to assume that the ministry places a trace on that spell... And I think Harry was given some Holiday Assignments that he had to complete and hence used Lumos...



The invisibility cloak is NOT impervious to ALL enchantments... It was made by "Death" so that it can escape "death himself" ... As far as the Body bind charm is concerned, it has nothing to do with death... And Moody's eye... That's a mystery... He was an Auror, the best of them... He made the eye detect any enchantments and see through anything...



And Dumbledore was one of the greatest magicians of all times... The wand isn't as good as the magician himself ( I think )...



There are bound to be some loose ends to a story... We could make our own theories or just forget them...



Plz vote for the best answer coz I want to become a prominent member...

Answer 7

first question:

that was from the movie, right. read the book you'll understand

2nd:

the cloak isn't oblivious to all enchantments

3rd:

ive been asking the same question as well! lol

Answer 8

I've noticed all these as well. I think they are errors that the editor/J.K must have overlooked.