Timeline for Has JK Rowling ever directly contradicted the books?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 15, 2020 at 16:59 | history | edited | Obsidia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| May 15, 2020 at 3:45 | history | edited | Obsidia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 857 characters in body
|
| May 15, 2020 at 3:33 | history | edited | Obsidia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3088 characters in body
|
| May 10, 2020 at 0:33 | history | edited | Obsidia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2658 characters in body
|
| May 10, 2020 at 0:22 | history | edited | Obsidia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2658 characters in body
|
| Jul 14, 2018 at 5:15 | comment | added | user13267 | Obviously all the time related issues can be easily and very logically explained using time turners | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 21:07 | comment | added | Lord Farquaad | I'm also not so sure about the Quidditch one being a contradiction; it's actually eerily similar to the World Cup right now. It's factual to say "Brazil has reached the quarter-final of the World Cup, who is tipped to become the first South American World Cup winner within 16 years. Brazil has won the Soccer (sorry, I'm American) World Cup five times, but the late naughties and teens were generally considered wilderness years for this once great side." I'm taking a few liberties saying Brazil recently went through "wilderness years", but hopefully the point is still clear. | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 17:33 | comment | added | GreySage | The 2nd point isn't a contradiction, as Brazil could have won five times before the previous ten years which is taken into account in that sentence (seriously guys, it's plain English, 'within 10 years' means 'within the last 10 years' or 'within 10 years from the date in question'. There is no ambiguity). | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 15:15 | comment | added | OrangeDog | @BolteAltamont oh yeah, the turban still stands as further evidence, only now for the other way around :) | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 15:13 | comment | added | BolteAltamont | @OrangeDog In the books Quirrell is not actually mentioned to be wearing a turban when Harry meets him for the first time at the Leaky Cauldron. It is not until the second time Harry sees him, at Hogwarts, that he sees him in a turban. | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 11:21 | comment | added | Zizy Archer | @Kevin "Argentina and Brazil both reached the quarter-finals of the World Cup in the last century. " from the answer heavily implies that Peru would be the first winner in total, not decade. Nobody would mention a mere quarter final when there were several wins too. | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 9:15 | comment | added | OrangeDog | If he didn't have Voldemort on the back of his head the whole time, why did he suddenly start wearing a turban? | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 7:46 | comment | added | Kevin | @JanusBahsJacquet: I disagree. I think it's really ambiguous and JKR could have meant something like "...which is tipped to become the first Latin World Cup winner within [the last] ten years." | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 7:41 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | @Kevin Not when it says they are “tipped to become” the first. That’s definite future. I agree the Quirrell one isn’t a contradiction. Voldemort possessed Quirrell in Albania (and to some degree kept him possessed); latching parasitically on to the back of his head wasn’t possession as such, just being more hands-on (heads-on?) with him. The first one isn’t really a contradiction either: the Leaky Cauldron interview took place in 2005; Voldemort killed Grindelwald in 1998. At the time of the interview, Grindelwald had been dead for seven years, so she was quite right. | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 7:16 | comment | added | Kevin | Re "within ten years" - Could that possibly mean "in the last ten years"? | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 5:00 | history | edited | Obsidia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2013 characters in body
|
| Jul 5, 2018 at 4:53 | history | edited | Obsidia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2013 characters in body
|
| Jul 5, 2018 at 4:11 | comment | added | BolteAltamont | Of course, it seems Voldemort's possession of Quirrell was not as strong as his possession of, say, Ginny, since Ginny fully blacked out and was under Voldemort's complete control, whereas Quirrell seemed more like a fearful servant prone to mistakes. This can probably be explained by the fact that Ginny was possessed by a soul fragment in a Horcrux, while Quirrell was possessed by a severely weakened soul fragment not really bound to anything. Still, Voldemort was able to exert some measure of influence over Quirrell which can still be called "possession." | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 4:06 | comment | added | BolteAltamont | The Quirrell issue is not necessarily a mistake, if you consider "possession" and "growing a face on the back of someone's head" to be different things. Voldemort possessed Ginny, Nagini, and Harry presumably without having to grow his face on the back of any of their heads. So the timeline was that Voldemort possessed Quirrell first. Then, when Quirrell failed to steal the Stone from Gringotts, he grew his face on the back of Quirrell's head to keep a closer eye on him. | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 3:45 | history | edited | Obsidia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1503 characters in body
|
| Jul 5, 2018 at 2:46 | comment | added | Alex | That seems like her contradicting canon before the canon was canonized, in which case she didn't really contradict canon. | |
| Jul 5, 2018 at 1:57 | history | answered | Obsidia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |