Talk:Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

-"This book contains only the second instance of narrative not delivered through Harry's point of view - the first chapter, in which the murder of Frank Bryce by Voldemort is described." This is excerpted from the first paragraph in the "Points of Interest" section.

My question is: isn't it somewhat counter-intuitive to include this information, seeing as how the would-be point-of-interest is that this book contains one of the rare instances in which the story proceeds outside of Harry's point-of-view of things, despite the fact the same paragraph later goes on to assert that this scene/instance DOES occur - to some extent, at least - within Harry's POV? Also the fact that the paragraph two instances of "narrative not delivered through Harry's point of view," with the actual instance in question of Frank Bryce's murder not being one of them (instead, citing Mr. Dursley's wizard encounter in the first book and the somewhat omniscient third-person perspective of Spinner's End in the sixth book)?

No, I think that it is fine. In that chapter itself the story is told from the perspective of Frank Bryce, and we only find out later that Harry has seen what we have, I think that it is fine. Oh and some people even argue that this could be the third, because in the first book it is from Ron and Hermione's persective during the quidditch match where Harry is getting bewitched off his broom; but whatever. -Mbatman 72 16:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey I was thinking that perhaps the plot section could be merged into Harry Potter (plot) for the articles of the books. Some of the book articles have more lengthy plot summaries than the plot article, some less lengthy, and I'd like to try and make that more consistent. Any opinions? EvilPhoenix 03:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

i second that phoenix... gone ahead and made the change. it might be adviseable to simply link this page to the Plot, or to scrap the plot page and use the long summaries in the individual articles.... any thoughts?

--jonasaurus 01:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the plot pages have been deleted, and we have a rag-bag of long and short summaries in the book articles. I have attempted to solve this by creating a significantly shorter summary than the one here, which was really too long for a quick scan, and added it in front of the longer one. Doing the summarisising, i could see the longer one needs more work. It is a little untidy, and probably now could have a few facts added... though also perhaps a few removed bearing in mind that they now get a mention in the short summary. Altogether, the whole lot is not unreasonably long for an article. Sandpiper 23:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Themes

I have always thought an overriding theme of the book was the indifference of race to the innocent, and the overriding concern of race to the guilty. Harry's love interest is Cho Chang, a girl of asian decent, and his date is Patil, a girl of middle eastern or Indian descent. Hermonine dates a Bulgarian native. Draco Malfoy only goes with another pure-blood member of his house. Voldemort's death eaters are also all white, pure-blood (or pretenders to such).

The theme is further explored via the minor characters. Neville Longbottom dates Ginny Weasly, but he wanted a date, and Ginny wanted to go to the dance. One of the Weasley twins asks Angelina, a black girl, to the dance, and she accepts. Neither considers it a big deal. Even Ron had a huge crush of Fleur, and even asked her to the Yule Ball. It didn't matter that she was 3 years older than him, a foreign girl, and, they barely spoke the same language. Jclinard 08:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but race, in the concrete, does not play an important role in Harry Potter. Blood purity becomes a metaphor for race. While it is important that characters did or did not care about the blood purity of their dates, the actual races of their dates is relatively unimportant. However, one theme of Goblet of Fire is nationalism, so it is siginificant when characters from different schools ask each other out.12.17.189.77 19:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Underwater rescue

Am I the only person on earth who wonders how the hell 3 major characters got kidnapped and were held hostage underwater in the middle of Hogwarts? I mean, what the hell? This lake full of grindylows has been sitting there nigh 4 years and they happen to pop up and go all insurgent at just the choice time when the novel needed some urgency? Somebody please explain this. The Crow 03:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"In the Second Task, Harry is sent into the Black Lake, on the Hogwarts Grounds to rescue..."
Ever considered that they were put there by the Triwizard organizers (which they were)? Brian Jason Drake 11:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As you will surely recall, the "hostages" (or at least Ron and Hermione) were summoned to McGonagall's office, put under protective spells, and placed in the lake during the preparations for the second task. Recall the scene where Hermione and Ron were in the library with Harry, researching methods to enable breathing underwater for an hour. Fred and George showed up with a summons for Ron and Hermione from Professor McGonagall. This is all well explained in the book. If you only saw the movie, without first reading the book, then you might have missed those details. --T-dot 11:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't recall as it's been 5 years since I read the book. This article itself refers to them as hostages, so no need for the scare quotes there. You can correct the article if you think they weren't hostages (personally I do, and I think it's kind of sick that responsible guardians would do something like that). At any rate, the backstory should probably go in the synopsis. The Crow

I haven't read the book for a while but I can't remember seeing any indication that these people were put there against their will (except for Ron's dramatic stories, which sound like they have nothing to do with the truth). Therefore that response is probably a bit extreme. What we can be fairly sure about is that this was a harsh trick on the contestants. Brian Jason Drake 06:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The article clearly states that it is about the book and has a link to the movie article, which happens to have its own synopsis. Therefore, this isn't relevant here.

This event was also in the book, was it not? 17:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This event was also in the book, but the movie obviously has a different story, and it happens to have its own article here. Nevertheless, it could probably be a bit clearer - see my comment above about assumptions. Brian Jason Drake 06:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

Wouldn't it be appropriate to delete the French edition cover here and put it on the French Wikipedia equivalent of this page? (I'm saying this on all of the Harry Potter book discussion pages). -Phi*n!x 01:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Harry Potter#Foreign language cover images. Brian Jason Drake 06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

At The World Cup

Someone recently added text about the Death Eaters rampage at the World Cup. It described Harry as being knocked out and Barty Crouch, Jr. conjuring the Death Mark. However, it did not happen this way in the book. Harry was always conscious, and he, Ron, and Hermione were not separated--they hid in the woods. Also, it was actually Winky who conjured the Death Mark, using Harry's stolen wand. I changed the wording to reflect this. My understanding is that the Wikipedia articles should only reflect events as they occured in the books and not the movies. PNW Raven 20:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Winky did not conjure the Dark Mark, in case you don't recall, Barty Jr. was a Death Eater and it was a heavy, raspy male voice that said the spell. The only magic Winky used was her bond to Barty to try and stop him from running away. Barty actually confesses to conjuring the mark when he's under the influence of Veriteserum. Other than that you're right, we should use the events as they were portrayed in the book and not the movie. 68.40.190.172 20:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Points of interest: Cleanup Request

Problem: Information in this section appears to be difficult to comprehend by individuals who aren't knowledgable about the series. Much of the information supplied in this section could be more comprehendable with direct quotations from the novel.

I've worked on cleaning up the grammar, someone else take it from here. -Litanss 11:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Gigantic Plot Hole

I tried to insert a bit about the book's gigantic plot hole(why go through the trouble of making the Triwizard Cup a portkey instead of just any ordinary object?) and it was quickly edited out. Fair enough. Instead of getting into an edit war, I thought we should have a discussion. Does anybody else think this should be addressed? This isn't an innocuous detail, it undermines the point of the entire novel. Has J.K ever made an official statement regarding it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.62.140.50 (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

It's not encyclopedic.John Reaves 04:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What's unencyclopedic about it? It's incontrovertible fact the plot hole exists.

It's fancruft and speculative. Besides, the idea of the maze was to get to the Cup. Don't you think it would be odd if there was an old boot there instead of the Triwizard cup? John Reaves 05:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a boot in the maze. Any old thing any old place. Moody could have said "Here Harry, grab that quill for me" on the first day of school and had the same effect.

Unless Rowling confesses, "Oops, silly me, writing a story which could have finished in four pages if I'd thought," it is merely opinion that it is a plothole. Redhen, for one, has suggested very persuasively various possible motivations and explanations (pointing out Voldemort's notorious love of showing off - so he'd want to terrify everyone by killing Harry at the Tournament). But only Rowling can know, so in the absence of statements or explanations, we have to dismiss it as opinion and muse over it elsewhere (as in the case of PS, where one has to suspend disbelief as to why the kids didn't bother to go to any teachers sooner). Michaelsanders 00:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to suspend disbelief about the Cup being the portkey, but I don't think Voldemort was showing off since it transported Harry to some place where only he and Death Eaters were present. Well, I guess you can say that his disappearance is dramatic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.50.113.28 (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

What I think Voldemort was logically thinking was that he could kill Harry, and send him back to Hogwarts, and make it look like an accident. This way his plan wouldn't get out, if Moody just sent Harry to Voldemort in the middle of the school year, don't you think that would be a little suspicious for Harry to randomly die in the middle of the school year? I think that Dumbledore or someone said something like that at some point...That's what I think anyway. -Mbatman 72 16:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

you know, there's a lot about magic that rowling never explains, but much of it revolves around symbolism (like the number 7). perhaps voldemort's spell didn't just require the blood of any enemy, but (1) your chief enemy and (2) taken in his hour of triumph. if that's the case, there's no plot hole at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.133.69.241 (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Famous Harry Potter disappears from the safest place in Britain? That would terrify people. Not to mention that we don't know what would have happened to the body: any number of spectacular possibilities. Michaelsanders 12:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

'That would terrify people'? And Voldemort doesn't want to scare people because...? For the little it's worth, I think that this IS a plothole. Because it seems fairly easy to clear up - given how it is not possible to bug or apparate or do anything like that in the Hogwarts grounds, Rowling could have put a little bit in about only in the triwizard tournament, or only using an alien enchanted tournament artefact (such as the cup), could crouch have created a portkey. Clearly, the same could not be done to normal Hogswarts artefacts. In other words, there is a plothole because Rowling does not explain why it was only at the tournament that this could be done. It is a lot to ask that readers believe that Voldemort would be prepared to accept the risk that Harry would not win the cup for no stated reason. Frogemporer 10:22, 08 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would terrify people. And far more if it happened in the middle of the Triwizard Tournament (especially if the other two champions had been killed/injured by 'famous Viktor Krum') - especially if he then dumped the body 'back' at Hogwarts. It's quite clear that Voldemort has a penchant for dramatics - that's why he doesn't simply kill Harry at the graveyard (or anywhere else). If we don't accept that Voldemort is a self-defeating, over-flashy, and slightly inept villain, the whole canon falls apart - he could have got Quirrell to murder him in Diagon Alley that first day. And yes, he probably could have swiped Harry at any time during the year. But it wouldn't have been so dramatic as swiping him from the middle of the task, when everyone is at feverpitch already. Michaelsanders 13:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As a note, Fleur was the only champion injured by Viktor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.183.40.221 (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

**Cough** Cedric **cough** cruciatus **cough** Michaelsanders 21:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a legitimate and interesting question, but probably not something that belongs in an encyclopedia entry. But for those who are bothered by it, the best explanation I've seen is this:

Perhaps portkeys were prevented from working within Hogwarts (like disapperation), or perhaps Crouch Jr. thought Dumbledore would readily detect one. So Crouch Jr. couldn't just create one and give it to Harry. But, the Tri-Wizard Cup was presumably a portkey already (to transport the winner out of the maze), one which Dumbledore knew about and allowed to operate. So Crouch simply redirected this existing portkey.

See, for instance, this discussion: [1] -- Tim314 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes a certain degree of sense to include some mention in this article that GOF is the most-criticized of the Harry Potter novels in terms of continuity errors and plot holes, requiring Rowling and her publishers to revise the text and offer revisionist explanations for the various problems. In addition to the plot hole being discussed here, you also have the error in the order in which Harry's parents died; the error in failing to have Harry see the thestrals at the end of the book; the repeated failure of Harry to use the accio spell to solve simple problems after using it to resolve a major plot point; and so forth. These problems are well commented on in a variety of amateur, professional, and online publications. I think the encyclopedic way of handling this subject would be to discuss it in general terms rather than offering an exhaustive lists, but with specific and cited examples of the criticism. Unfortunately, it's 5 AM for me at the moment, so it's a project of larger scope than I could tackle right now. Justin Bacon 09:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference?

What is the differnce from the normal version and the 'adult' version? I don't really understand. Can someone explain? HPFan

The adult version has a more serious looking cover, so adults won't be embarrassed by reading a children's novel in public.

Yeah, I never understood why adults would be that embarassed... - TEM101

Plot Coverage

The polt outline quite literally says that harry had his Voldemort dream during the time he spent at the Weasly's. That happened in the movie. In the book, which this aritcle is about, Harry had his dream at the Dursley's. He then thought through all of his corrospondents, eg. Weasley's, Dumbledore. and then chose to send a letter to Sirius. I'm not experienced enough to change the article, so could someone change it please? Akid 03:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at editing the first two sections of the detailed plot outline. Does everyone agree that the "plot overview" needs to be considerably shortened to give a much briefer overview? If so, I'll have a bash at editing that more ruthlessly... --Dave. 12:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Is there any reason why there are a long outline and a sectioned off outline. I have combined the two, if that is ok with everyone and added some quotes and other info.Eragon fan 15:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree at all. As current, the Goblet of fire plot section is shorter than any other book, which includes the first three books, which are much shorter than this one. I think that the plot needs to be expanded a bit to get more detail in. Especially with the whole Barty Crouch backround, it just says that they find that it is Barty Crouch Jr., but does not go on to explain why this is significant.

-Mbatman 72 17:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Working Title...

Wasn't the original title supposed to be "Harry Potter and the Doomsday Tournament" not "Doomspell?"

Also, if anyone has any posters with the original title it would be cool to see them in the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.76.107 (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Query from Chinese dragon

This section has been added to Chinese Dragon:

In the Harry Potter series, Chinese dragons are one of the few races of dragons, and are called "Chinese Fireballs". According Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chinese Fireballs can breathe fire, and according to their name, they must be the only dragons to breathe fireballs, and the other races breathe big dusts of fire.

Not having read Goblet of Fire, I would like an expert to assess whether the claims here - in particular,

• that these are Chinese dragons, not "Western dragons" that live in China;
• and secondly, that they are the only types that breathe fireballs;
• and thirdly, what on earth is a "dust of fire"?

Thanks in advance. --Sumple (Talk) 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

DADA

According to one of the secrets (plant in the ? room) pettigrew was when JK planed goblet of fire DADA teacher and taking the poly juice potion instead of barty crouch JR. where do I put this? Djf2014 14:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S Umbridge was going to be Oaklden Holoday.

Do you have proof, or a citation of it?-Mbatman 72 16:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Points of interest correction

The chapter "The Riddle House" was the third time that JK Rowling has gone outside Harry's POV, if you count the sequence in PS's "Quidditch" when Harry is getting bucked off his broom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.236.154 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Thestrals?

Why couldn't Harry see the thestrals at the end of the book? Zain Ebrahim 12:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

JKR's reasoning is here. Daggoth S 12:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

PlayStation / 1994 ref

An IP added this to the article: "Someone's going to have to edit this correctly because I don't know what part of 1994 you are referring to, but he could have gotten a Japanese Playstation for christmas since it came out December 3, 1994."

I have taken it out because even though it is potentially correct, I believe the possibility of a Japanese console existing in a PAL territory in this instance is exceedingly remote. (That, and it's not noted anywhere that Dudley can speak Japanese. Maybe we'll find out about that in DH?) Daggoth | Talk 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Another date ref

That isn't the only problem with this being in 1994. The book specifically says that October 30th was a Friday, whereas in 1994 it was a Sunday. I think that 1998 is a more likely year for this book, but until we know the year for sure it shouldn't be in the article. Since we know that it cannot be 1994, I'm taking out that reference. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the dates attributed to the HP books are based on the "DeathDay" party in Chamber of Secrets. The timeline on the CoS DVD was apparently approved by JKR but there is a lack of consistency throughout the series regarding dates/numbers etc, and the only SPECIFIC reference to a year is that of the Death Day party. We certainly can't say that GoF took place in 1998, since that specfically contradicts CoS. --Dave. 10:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)