“It’s leviOsa, not levioSA!” This is one of the most iconic quotes from one of the most iconic fantasy series ever written: Harry Potter. Since its release in 1997, the book series’ amazing world-building, captivating characters, and enthralling plot has captured millions of hearts and enraptured readers of all ages. However, a critical look into the books reveals that the series suffers from inconsistencies—both in characters and plot—that ultimately reveal that the much beloved series is all too overrated.
A widely acknowledged plot hole in Harry Potter is the use of time-turners: tiny hourglasses that allow the user to go back in time one hour. Time-turners were introduced in the third book, The Prisoner of Azkaban, in which Hermione is given one by her teacher to attend classes that would otherwise coincide with one another. Later on, the trio—Harry, Hermione, and Ron— use Hermione’s time-turner to go back in time to save Sirius Black from execution. But then the question arises: why weren’t they used elsewhere? Wizards could have used them when Harry’s parents were being killed by Voldemort or when Cedric Diggory was killed in The Goblet of Fire. Yet somehow, they are gifted to a middle schooler and not to Aurors—who are essentially the FBI of the Wizarding World. This creates a gaping plot hole in the series, and although Rowling attempts to fill it in the fifth book when all time-turners are accidentally destroyed, the poor-writing has already done its damage. Though small plot holes are considered acceptable in other books, in a series with a plot that depends so much on the intricacies of such magic, such an inconsistency can’t be overlooked.
Though small plot holes are considered acceptable in other books, in a series with a plot that depends so much on the intricacies of such magic, such an inconsistency simply can’t be overlooked.
Another instance of bad writing is seen in the treatment of the Slytherin House. The concept of Houses is one of the most engaging parts of Harry Potter, with thousands taking the Sorting Hat quiz to see which of the four houses they belong in. In the series, students are supposed to be sorted by their personality and character traits. Ravenclaws, for instance, are driven by curiosity and thirst for knowledge. What constitutes a Slytherin, however, still remains a mystery, changing based on Rowling’s whim. Dumbledore in the second book explains to Harry the similarities between Harry’s personality and the traits the snake-clad house stands for. He points out how Slytherins are characterized by their resourcefulness, determination, and a particular characteristic of disregarding rules. However, despite this disregard of rules a Slytherin almost never rebels against the toxic traditions of the past. When Draco Malfoy calls Hermione a “Mudblood,” not a single member of the Slytherin Quidditch team speaks out against him. Rather, they all conform to the centuries old idea that pure-blooded Wizards are better than these so-called “mudbloods.” What’s more, there is not a single Slytherin included in Harry’s Defense against the Dark Arts club, Dumbledore’s Army, despite there being students from all the other houses. And though Rowling scatters Slytherin students throughout the pages of her books, there is not a single one that befriends Harry or is thought highly of. Each one of them support outdated beliefs and are written to be highly unlikable characters.
though Rowling scatters Slytherin students throughout the pages of her books, there is not a single one that befriends Harry or is thought highly of
Even more surprisingly, not a single Slytherin student fights in the finale: the battle of Hogwarts against Voldemort. Rowling tries to show how Slytherins are respectable, good people and that the house is not wholly bad—incorporating characters like Snape, Slughorn, and Regulus Black. Yet upon close analysis, it becomes clear that these attempts are nothing but shallow afterthoughts.
The inconsistencies in Rowling’s writings aren’t just limited to magical objects or even houses, they are even seen in one of the main characters: Ron. Ron is one of the most popular and widely recognized characters in the Harry Potter series, being one of Harry’s closest friends along with Hermione. Unlike Harry and Hermione, however, Ron unfortunately has almost zero character development. Ron is introduced to us as the ginger-haired boy with corn-beef sandwiches who sits next to Harry in the Hogwarts express. Ron has big dreams and aspirations, ranging from becoming head boy to making his parents proud. Yet, throughout the entirety of the series, Ron never earns any of these things. Though he does ultimately become prefect, he is only given the privilege because Dumbledore didn’t want to burden Harry with other work.
Even when Ron wins several Quidditch matches for Gryffindor, almost none of these victories actually have a meaningful impact on him. Whatever he wins—usually due to luck—has the adverse effect of making him more arrogant and flippant. And though it can be argued that Ron went through character development in the seventh book, becoming more sure of himself and his relationship with Hermione, one wonders why this happened only in the seventh book. Additionally, we barely ever see Ron’s talents being exhibited the way Hermione and Harry’s are, even though he clearly has many. Ron is a phenomenal Wizard-Chess player, even beating the puzzle that guarded the Mirror of Erised, and yet this talent for strategizing is never seen after the first novel. His academic performance remains below average throughout the series, and his magical abilities barely ever improve. Ultimately, even though Ron had great potential, he is just reduced to a simple sidekick for Harry.
Ron is a phenomenal Wizard-Chess player, even beating the puzzle that guarded the Mirror of Erised, and yet this talent for strategizing is never seen after the first novel
Despite these criticisms, Harry Potter remains a legendary series. There are few moments in literature that leave an impact quite as powerful as Harry and Ron defeating a troll in the girls’ bathroom, Harry pulling out Godric Gryffindor’s sword from the sorting hat, or Griffyindor pulling off a come back and winning the Quidditch cup. No flaw can ever diminish the brilliance of those evergreen moments; nor can any sigh of frustration triumph over the carefree bursts of laughter that follow another tale of Harry’s hilarious exploits. The purpose of realizing the series’ flaws isn’t to undermine the series as a whole but rather to pave an improved path for future books to take.
Ultimately it is as Dumbledore so rightly said: “Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.” It is only in accepting this duality–the astonishing good along with the serious flaws–that we can appreciate the series for what it actually is: an undoubtedly flawed, but truly magical piece of literature.