Of course, this is assuming the Stone should have been protected at all. First off, why does the Stone need to be in Hogwarts at all? Why does Dumbledore need to be involved? Hell, why was it even in England in the first place? Flamel is french, and according to Potter canon, he lived in France at the time of the first book.
The thing they need in order to keep living. Which they presumably wanted to do. Logically speaking, this means the Stone should have stayed in easy reach. Better yet, keep it on their property, and involve no one else in its protections. The fewer people who know anything, the safer it would be.
Ideally, they should have just locked the Stone in a box or drawer, then Hidden it, or the room it was in, under the Fidelius charm. Or, if the charm can only work on full structures, build a tiny little structure - hell, no bigger than a dog house - on their property, stick it in there, and stick that under Fidelius.
Simple, no one else need be involved - because the Flamels themselves could be the Secret Keeper - and even if a thief broke into their house, the thief could never find it.
One would have to assume that Voldemort is not the first would be thief in over years, and that the Flamels would be skilled enough to prevent themselves from being tortured into giving up the Secret. Of course, that was assuming the Flamels had not already decided to die. Presumably their stash of Elixir for setting their affairs in order was already made before the events of the book - because once the Stone was hidden it would be rather difficult for them to make more - so then why bother with the whole big production?
Better yet, why risk the lives of all those children just to set a trap for a known genocidal terrorist who is known to kill children? They should have just destroyed the stone themselves, and saved everybody the stress and risk and danger. The Flamels should have either put it under the Fidelius themselves if they wanted to live, or just destroyed it.
Completely agree. However, during the opening feast, he basically hinted at such when he talked about how the third floor corridor was forbidden on pain of death. I mean, why would he say something like that to a bunch of kids? Children are naturally curious, so words like this could tempt them to check out the third floor corridor.
This is especially so for those prone to being troublemakers such as Fred and George Weasley. I mean, what if he never said anything? What if he just kept quiet about it? Dumbledore explained that he decided to leave Harry with Vernon, Petunia, and Dudley Dursley because of the blood wards. I talk more about this here and here.
He was already right there in front of their house. Harry was on that doorstep until the next morning when Petunia discovered him while bringing out the milk bottles for the milkman. This was grossly negligent of Dumbledore, McGonagall and Hagrid. The weather forecast even predicted a rainy night.
Did we ever find out what he wrote in the letter with Harry that induced Petunia to accept him? As a parent, I am fucking horrified that someone left a child. A child!! Out on a doorstep all night. Harry was over the age of 1. My daughter was walking at 9 months. They left a fucking child who was possibly probably walking out on a doorstep with no fucking supervision all fucking night.
As an adult, I hate Albus Dumbledore for this. This is so grossly negligent that it would get him prosecuted in courts. But with so many ever-evolving aspects, there's always more to discuss.
One core element of Harry's magical school that still deserves more unpacking: Slytherin house. Based on the archaic division system at Hogwarts, Slytherin comprises one-quarter of the entire Hogwarts school. And yet, there are major tenets of it that make absolutely no sense. One questions fans have is why Severus Snape would be allowed to be head of house.
Draco Malfoy as a prefect makes sense because the Malfoy family has a lot of pull with the school, but there's really no reason for Snape to be in charge of Slytherin. Not only was he a former Death Eater, but he was also actively toxic to his students. There is no plausible academic setting in which "Dumbledore vouched for him" would be a passable defense to any sort of greater oversight committee.
Granted, Slytherin house was built by someone who was also unsavory. Snape may not be a good guy, but the history of Slytherin is populated with leaders who were even worse than him. The founder, Salazar Slytherin, was always up to no good.
For example, it was he who devised the Chamber of Secrets as a way to teach certain students in peace away from the watchful eyes of his three co-founders. Putting aside the notion of why they'd want to work with him anyway, how did they never notice this massive bit of infrastructure that also contained a basilisk?
It's nonsense. This is a nonsensical element that might apply for Hogwarts, as a whole, and not just Slytherin house. But seriously, whenever the houses gather in the Great Hall, there is always a perfectly even amount of students at each table! What's the Sorting Hat up to here? Does he sort a whole bunch of clever students in Ravenclaw and heartful students in Gryffindor and then look at who he has left to sort and see that he's eight kids behind in Slytherin?
Are the kids with surnames beginning towards the end of the alphabet just thrust into Slytherin because they need to make up the numbers? Ravenclaw was not exactly the most fleshed-out house in Hogwarts, you guys.
Then of course there's Slytherin -- the evil ones. The blonde ones. The kids who won't fight in the Battle of Hogwarts, because they're too busy counting all of their money.
The kids who, according to J. Rowling herself in a recent tweet, are racists. All in all, it's just not a good look. However, doesn't there have to be more to Slytherin than what initially meets the eye? Isn't it borderline impossible, from an optimist's perspective, for one-quarter of a school's population to be "evil? Here at MTV News, we think yes. We think Slytherin has gotten an unfair rep over the years, which is why we consulted with John Granger -- the "Dean of Harry Potter Studies," according to Time -- to break down which popularly held Slytherin assumptions are real, and which are stranger than fiction.
Here's what he had to say:. Much like we suspected, the assumption that Slytherin is the "evil" house is a bunch of garbage -- remember Severus Snape, bro? AKA "one of the great heroes of the series," as Granger refers to him?
In fact, according to Granger, the misconception that Slytherin house is evil came from two things -- A, Rowling's own value system, and B, the need for Harry to have a foil in the form of Draco Malfoy , which is a longstanding schoolboy novel trope. However, Granger says it's important to remember that even despite Rowling's distaste for the purely ambitious, she still gave some small shout-outs to decidedly un-evil Slytherin characters.
So there you have it, folks -- just because you're wearing green, doesn't mean you're evil. Moving on. Now, it's definitely true that a whole bunch of Slytherin sat out the Battle of Hogwarts.
0コメント