An engaging book is one with a good plot, the vehicle than drives the story. Sometimes the author introduces an implausible or conveniently coincidental element to a story, and we're willing to suspend our disbelief and accept the premise.
I love the Harry Potter books obviously, but one plot hole I can't come to terms with is that Albus Dumbledore did not tell young Harry nor his own colleagues, it seems, about the true identity of Lord Voldemort until after the chamber of secret horrors in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
Lord Voldemort was and is Tom Riddle, son of witch Merope Gaunt and Muggle Tom Riddle. He's a half-blood wizard who hates Muggles and other half-bloods, the wizard version of Adolph Hitler, the man who tried to wipe out an entire race.
In Chamber of Secrets, Lucius Malfoy slips Riddle's cursed diary into Ginny Weasely's cauldron. We found out in Half-Blood Prince that the diary also was a horcrux. If only the wizarding world, including Harry, had known that Voldemort was once called Tom Riddle, a whole lot of problems would have been avoided (pardon the passive voice; it flowed better).
Ginny would have recognized the name and tossed the diary or turned it in to Dumbledore. That would have ended the diary-horcrux/chamber of secrets horror before it started. If she had no clue who Riddle was, then her father definitely would have known. More important, Dumbledore, at the very least, should have told Harry Voldemort's real name.
If Ginny, Mr. Weasely, Harry, and others had known all about Riddle, Chamber of Secrets would be a different story from the one J.K. Rowling wanted to tell. In that regard, I dig what she was trying to do. Still…
I can suspend disbelief about a lot of things in the HP series, but that plot problem is too humongous to ignore. It is too implausible to believe that Dumbledore, for whatever reason, chose not to tell/warn people that Riddle and Voldemort were one in the same.
Maintained by La Shawn Barber, this site is not affiliated with Time Warner Entertainment Company, LP, Warner Brothers, The Walt Disney Company, Walden Media, Scholastic, Inc., or Bloomsbury Books. Copyrights and trademarks for books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners. Their use is allowed under Fair Use.
Unless otherwise noted, site design modifications, original writing, and photography are copyrighted by LBC Media, All Rights Reserved.
Original WP theme Copyright Mike Little
April 26th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
But think about how closed-mouthed the authorities are when it comes to Voldermort. Obviously, Lucious Malfoy knew Voldermort's true identity, since he had possession of some of Voldermort's things. Mr. Weasley might have known, as well, but Ginny didn't tell anyone she had the diary. When Harry found it in the girl's bathroom, he also did not turn it in to Dumbledore. Dumbledore seems to say that authorities were not aware of certain possessions of Voldermort's were in the hands of Death Eaters who escaped notice.
All this secrecy stems from the fear Voldermort instilled in people: they were afraid to even speak his name, even when he appeared to be dead.
Even when Dumbledore (and never the Ministry of Magic) reveals more information to Harry, it is only shared when Dumbledore feels Harry is prepared to hear it.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Oops… accidently hit "enter" before I was done…
And others had to have known about the dual identity: all those who knew Tom Riddle from before, but then knew Voldermort later. I don't recall reading that his appearance changed after he took on the persona of Voldermort. One wizard "goes away", and one wizard comes out of nowhere?
April 26th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Oh, Thank Goodness! I am so glad you are back writing more here! I check your 'Corner' every day but I had forgotten about this one!
Miss Lady, I have thought the same thing. Everyone is so scared to even say Voldermort's name, much less anything about him.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I thought the exact same thing, especially after reading Book 6 and finding out that people such as Professor Slughorn knew that Voldemort had once been Tom Riddle. One could assume that all the Hogwarts professors knew it, and since they teach at one of the main schools of the wizarding world, you would think that their students would eventually get some hint of Voldemort's identity, too.
After all, in the series' world, Voldemort would be a major historical figure. You would think young wizards could learn about his history just as much as we could learn about Hitler's. But then again, Miss Lady has a point in that Voldemort's very being is shrouded in fear and mystery. I've often wondered if the widespread fear that was left, even years after his defeat, was some sort of curse that he had left behind. There does seem to be a magical element to it, and magic has a way of fixing plot holes.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
From the very beginning of the saga, it was "He Who Must Not Be Named". Even Hagrid feared to speak his name. It may have been an open secret to those who were Tom Riddle's contemporaries and older, but for this next generation, of which Harry and Co. are a part, if no one ever speaks of it, how are they to know?
April 26th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Maybe Voldemort made a Secret Keeper about his identity, perhaps himself as the Keeper. Dumbledore thus would be unable to reveal Tom Riddle is Voldemort. However, since Tom Riddle admitted it himself to Harry in the chamber, he broke the Secret Keeper spell, thus Dumbldore was no longer prevented from mentioning it.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
As I mentioned before, Dumbledore's secrecy caused a lot of problems for a number of people. I think there is more to his reticence than we have yet been informed. Remember we are basically seeing the story from Harry's point of v iew, and there is an awful lot we don't know about Dumbledore's thoughts and actions.
I don't honestly think you can call anything in the series a plot hole until the last volume is published. I believe many things that have been hidden will be made clear, and many previously inexplicable things will be explained.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Peeves: Potter, you rotter
While we wait for the July 21 release of the new Harry Potter book, which Mr. B. and I have already ordered from Amazon and therefore hope to get a little bit earlier, there's several fan sites to peruse, including…
April 27th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Does anyone even learn history in wizarding England? Professor Binns hasn't updated his lesson plan since he died at least. I'm not sure how long ago that was, but current events usually seem to take about a decade to become history. I doubt the sole wizarding academy in England teaches anything as recent as Voldemort's rise. It's not just the fear of speaking Voldemort's name. They don't teach the next generation anything at all.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I have no problem believing that Voldemort was known publicly only as "Voldemort." For a variety of reasons, many listed here already, this doesn't bother me at all. In hindsight, I'm sure the Weasleys, Dumbledore, or one of the professors would have made it known to Harry or anyone else they thought could benefit from the knowledge, if they believed it would protect them. (Remember — these are all just still kids in book 2, and the good adults all seem to act out of a sense of responsibility to protect them in many instances — knowledge can, indeed, be dangerous.)
But without any warning that Voldemort would somehow end up acting under the name of Tom Riddle again, what would be the purpose of sharing that information?
One more thing to consider is that there are plenty of notorious people today who go by a nickname, and the average joe has no clue what their given name is. How many people know that Tipper Gore was Mary Elizabeth Aitcheson? And that Cher used to be known as Cheryl Sarkisian LaPiere? And that Prince's (The Artist, The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, TAFKAP, or that crazy symbol thing) full name was Prince Rogers Nelson? None is quite as evil as Voldemort, and they don't invoke quite as much fear (unless Cher threatens to make another movie…). But the principle is similar. When someone becomes notorious under a new or different name, their given name is frequently "forgotten."
April 27th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
I knew! *waving hand* I knew Cher's name was Cheryl LaPierre!!!
But then, I am of her generation and was a huge fan of Sonny and Cher back in the '60s, so I am the exception that proves your rule
.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
I also knew that Cher's real name was Cheryl LaPierre, but had forgotten it. I will forget it again very soon. I do not see the need to tell my kids kids to avoid talking to diaries (or buying albums) by someone named LaPierre. Am I risking too much?
April 28th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I suspect the older generation knew, and that would include Hagrid, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Slughorn, and the older Death Eaters of Riddle's own year. It was obviously publicly known, since Slughorn was never part of the Order, and he knew that the young kid who had asked him about horcruxes went on to become the darkest wizard of all time. But what's most likely is that no one ever called him by his birth name anymore, and kids like Ginny Weasley wouldn't recognize the name. Remember that Ginny never talked to anyone about the diary, and Harry never talked to anyone about it but Ron and Hermione. If they had even mentioned it to Hagrid, they might have known earlier.
It is clear, however, that Dumbledore was holding back everything he learned about Voldemort's past. He explained his reasons for that to Harry. He said he didn't want Voldemort knowing what he was coming to suspect about the horcruxes or what he was coming to understand as Voldemort's weaknesses.
April 29th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
I would have to say that I don't consider it a large plot-hole, but I do consider it a valid question (hey, what do you expect? I'm working on a PhD in Biblical Studies … every question about a text is a legit question and you always have to bring your evidence to the table, so here I go …)
I think that a few things that have been said here are really good and deserve to be highlighted together with a few others I would add.
1. Dumbledore is stingy with the info. I say that tongue in cheek because I don't think of him as stingy or miserly or curmudgeonly (as some online commentators do, like I know Red Hen wants to extend the "deconstruction of the metanarrative" to Dumbledore) but I do think it is a legit question, mainly because of the point trish raised. In the end, until I find it contradicted in the text of book 7 (which it is, at this point an open matter until the public release closes it) I side with Dumbledore as wise and that we are meant to side with Harry's POV that DD was a clod in letting Snape off the hook and thus allowed Lily and James' deaths, but that we will see something in book 7 that explains DD's actions AT LEAST as a concrete and very real choices that had to be made in the face of "clear and present danger" as the lesser of two evils (but I don't think it will be what Red Hen was hinting at in the Who Killed Albus Dumbledore book by Granger, that Dumbledore and Snape planned even the info leak and the deaths as a battle tactic with acceptable casualties … but I have been known to be wrong before)
2. My second point pertains to the specifics of the proposed "plot-hole" and what some have been saying on here about the fear of the name, or if Voldy had a secret keeper etc. I think the question is how well it was known at all that Voldy used to be Tom Riddle. That Voldy is the heir of Salazar Slytherin (I almost typed shorthand SS, but then realized those are Severus Snape …. hmmmm) is not identical with his having been Tom Riddle, in terms of what people know or how it effects them. I mean, Riddle's heritage and blood-lines could be verifyable if anyone knew and so a death eater could have checked up on it if he knew Voldy's former name and was a little disgruntled and looked . I'm not even sure Lucius made the connection, he may have simply thought the diary was just some precious key to open the chamber, for all he may have known Tom Riddle may have been some goody-two-shoes whom Voldy hasd a particular dislike for and decided to practice a little irony and make key to the chamber out of a book that belonged to the poor chump.
Keep in mind the age difference here, what Harry sees in the diary was 50 years old … Molly and Arthur would have been weening at the oldest at that time. Hagrid was around but I'm not positive, at least from text, that he would have put 2 and 2 together, maybe a little different than the teachers in his view of Riddle - they thought it was such a shame that he went to B&B but I'm sure Hagrid was more than happy to see the back of the kid who had won major brownie points by pinning the chamber thing on him and Aragog - but I'm not sure it can be justified in text that he or anybody else made the connection, with Voldy's propensity for the theatrical and hoods and capes and all, and who knows how many were still around that even remembered his boyish face - remember, Harry has the advantage in making that connection becuase he is getting the sort of mini-series version in the penseive … many might have thought "what a shame about Riddle, such a bright boy and then he went to work at B&B and then just sort of disappeared .. I think I even heard he turned to some petty theivery and raided some poor old lady's jewelry box before he absconded and vanishes … but I can't worry too much about that because I have to worry about this bad guy running around now killing people everywhere, calling himself … well, we just won't say his name, we know who we mean" (who knows, maybe part of what was going on between the lines in the memory we witnessed of Voldy and DD meeting in the office about the DADA teaching post, was Voldy still a bit nervous because DD was one of the few who could still make the connection but wasn't afraid of Voldy)
And there may be inconsistencies on the ages in places that also partly drive the feeling of "plot-hole" … Lucius may have been at the breast, or not even born, when Voldy was sixteen (he has an 11 year old son when Voldy is roughly 66/67 - 50 years ago he was 16, take off the 11 years back to Draco's birth and Lucius would have had to been 39/40 when Draco was born and 50 in the present tales even to be a newborn when Voldy opened the chamber the first time), but his wife's brother-in-law (Lestrange) seems to have been among Riddle's crew at HW, as was McNair the executioner etc … it seems that they and the early death eaters might know/have known, but if Voldy's motivation to keep his past secret was strong McNair and the early death eaters may have known better than to say anything of what they knew to newcomers like Lucius … there are other things that are a bit off in some timing … in book 5 we have a practical test giver for the OWLS who was around giving tests when Dumbledore took the owls because he said DD did things with a wang he had never seen before … this pedagogue has got to be ancient, either taking elixir or else in the WW we have some Genesis pr-flood era type life spans … Horace Slughorn was of course around back then, but he seems to know politics quite well and I'm sure knew to keep his mouth shut if he did put 2 and 2 together about Voldy and Riddle before DD approached him about the memory or before he might have heard some scuttlebutt after COS - and he seems to have quite a few tricks up his sleeve, I would not be surprised if some of them involved potions to slow the aging process)
In other words, there are a lot of lacunae in this particular one and the high number leads me to suspect that this is a key area in which Rowling will give big info drops in book 7 that will explain things. Not that I'm saying she is infallible as a writer and that some of the explanations might not still fill a bit mechanical once we have them and we just have to go "well, it was a little bit weak on this point and that" … but the whole thing does give me the gut feeling right now like it is (it sort of fits her pattern: we find out the diary was Voldy's and that Lucius handed it off and then we find it was a horcrux and I think we're meant to have an initial "jump" that he must have known this, and then she pulls the quickie that says "oh-ho … don't jump to conclusions so quickly" when DD is explaining … as I said, I don't think the evidence, at least as far as I can recall, is conclusive that because Lucius had the diary, even could see the name on it, that he knew that Voldy was Riddle, the half-blood)
Anyway, just my rambling thoughts on the matter. Good work though … the Rabbis always talked about such "bumps" in the Torah ("inconsistencies" etc) as the beckoning of an elusive lover drawing the beloved further and further into the world of the text, the world of the Torah that was written with "Black fire on White fire," the meanings and love of YHWH dancing elusively just behind the words on the page like the colored fire in Snape's potions riddle in book 1 (sorry to any who already read that bit in a comment on Granger's blog … I've had quite a bit of Rabbinics on the brain recently … last semester I read a midrash from the story of Elijah and the prophets of baal in the outback lightning cook off competition, and there is an inconsistency where E. has them bring both bulls and then it says later that the prophets took the bull that E. gave them, so whose livestock was it? and so the rabbis have a story about the bull not budging and E. asking him why and the bull saying "my brother bull over there gets to get sacrificed to the true God, and I get to get sacrificed to the false god and so the true God ain't gonna like me too much" and E. saying "Oh, Bull, Bull … it will be all right, do your duty and God won't be displeased with you" … fun stuff)
Merlin the Meandering
("My father was a wandering Aramean, he went down to Egypt and lived there as an alien.")
May 1st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
I also imagine that one reason no one spread the word was that those who were around at the time, especially Dumbledore, knew that Voldemort hated his father and loathed the name Tom Riddle. They must have assumed that there would be no reason to warn anyone, because there was no chance that Voldemort would ever use the name again.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Very true that there really wasn't a need to inform people because it is not likely to be decisive in protection, ie identifying the passing or presence or involvement of the bad guy and being able to act decisively or get away because it is not as likely for really anybody but somebody like DD, in fact it might cause more harm than good if people knew the name and then, on the off chance saw some clue or something of old tom riddle jr and get excited but were not equipped like DD to know what the best thing to do was or how to accomplish it even if they did know and so might wind up trying to "save the day" and only getting themself in a very dangerous position, if not killed.
We also have to remember what DD has said about not wanting Voldy to suspect how much he knows or can take educated guesses at. I was going to say that as far as Voldy knows DD may be in the group of people who saw TRjr disappear and said "what a shame" but didn't make the connection with Voldy, but it seems that he would have to know (from the LV's request chapter in HBP, from the meeting witnessed in the Penseive), but also "news" = "activity" - the less there are people barking up the tree of the history of Tom Riddle (and various clandestine DEs hearing the buzz etc), the less likely Voldy is to suspect that DD is barking up that tree in particular and maybe finding out about the Horcuxes and other good info. Other than that, Voldy might just take DD calling him Tom in the atrium fight in book 5 as that damn irritating thing DD always did of refusing to accept the name … he definitely knows, after that fight, that DD is active in fighting him, but he might not suspect how close DD is getting to the crux of undoing him, or I should say how close he got before dying and how much info he left harry with to do it - if DD's comments to Harry in those lessons are to be taken at face value.
(I realize that something like the fullblown scar-o-scope theory by John Granger, blows everything I just said, but like I have said on his site, until I see it in print in the book I'm siding with what I have … who knows, maybe if it is true, when I see it in book 7 it will be in a brilliant form I have never conceived of and that makes the story infinitely richer, in which case I would be more than happy to be proven wrong … as it is, in the forms I have heard it, I think it unlikely and agree with Travis Prinzi that it is more like "narrative misdirection on steroids" … but we'll have to wait and see … just 3 months now till I'm in probably the biggest midnight release frenzy the B&N at union square has probably ever seen)
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:06 am
Another explanation:
Tom Riddle was a handsome, well-respected student at Hogwarts as the Magical World first saw him. Only Dumbledore, who originally met him, knew his past hobbies.
Voldemort was a physically deformed version of Riddle, whose misdeeds were whispered fearfully even before he was fully outlawed. More than a few wizards may conclude that Riddle and Voldemort were two different persons, or that "something" happened to the good Riddle to transform him into the dark lord Voldemort, which not only warped his features, but his mind.
As for Dumbledore not informing Harry, please recall that Dumbledore suspected a link between Harry and Voldemort's mind. Dumbledore has more knowledge of Voldemort than Voldemort is aware of, particularly the full prophecy that Voldemort craves. It would be needlessly reckless to leak such information before Harry could prove himself able to cast out Voldemort, which was not the case until the end of Book Five.
Also, the trivial bit of information such as Voldemort's old name is exactly that: trivia. Dumbledore is a busy man, particularly during Book 2 when he is not only trying to manage a school with an opened Chamber of Secrets, but with his own position threatened by Malfoy's machinations.
May 5th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I have to disagree with Les in some key facets, simply because some of the things don't match up, at least as far as I can see, with text details on Dumbledore's character.
The first is DD as the "busy father" with "big concerns." With the almost downright flippancy, or at least nachalance, with which he addresses the whole DA thing with Delores and several aurors breathing down his neck (although he knew he had shacklebolt on his side, but Delores meant not just Lucius but the whole ministry down his neck) and then does the big bang disappearance, leaving the school in the hands of Umbridge for a bit, with pretty safe confidence that McGonnegal, Flitwick, and the Weasely twins (with the help of Peeves) can hold that fort down for a while … I think in COS DD is a lot more focussed on what the diary and the chamber mean, not only in terms of immediate danger but also in terms of the master-plot (like who he STRONGLY suspects opened it last time, as a true heir of Slytherin), but I find it hard to believe that he actually feels threatened by Lucius' machinations on his position (I would see him as being much more concerned about the danger people like Lucius pose in the way they raise sons like Draco) … DD is a mystic, and a powerful one at that, not a modern day politician or business manager … He's definitely no Fudge or Scrimgeour …
he may be, as Travis Prinzi suggests in what I think was a masterful piece of investigation and sound theory, a Fabian in regards to how best to effect change, but I think this is on the larger level of the WW, not whether he gets to keep his headmaster job (in the end I think he admits that there is an end to every tenure that is necessary, including this life, and that he accepts his death peacefully, although takes a very pragmatic view of working even with that for the good as best he could, giving every last ounce of himself in the fight to outwit not only Voldemort but the forces that helpe Voldy become the un-man he is today, to the point of using his own death)
In truth, I don't think the question for DD was ever about losing his job as headmaster … heck, the guy has three times been offered Fudge's/Scrimgeour's position as top dog of the political realm (three times already at the point when Voldy was still at least officially asking for the dark arts post), and regained his seat as chief warlock on the wizengamot as easily as he lost it … I don't think he's ever worried about anybody seriously wresting control of Hogwarts from him till he is dead … for him the question is whether or not to take the Minister position, or whether he can do more good at Hogwart's than he ever could from such an office as minister, but I don't think he ever realy felt threatened by Fudge, Scrimgeour, Umbridge or Lucius Malfoy.
And with regards to the opened chamber … DD had, by that point, VERY strong suspicions who had opened the chamber the first time and knew that the person was both Voldy and the Tom Riddle of the diary … I would say the fact that a diary formerly owned by Tom Riddle and exhibiting the characteristics of personality and influence/control … in other words, whatever it may have been to others the one thing I can't see it being to DD, is trivial … in fact in the HBP synopsis he gives Harry after they have the final memory from Sluggo, he tells Harry that the diary of Tom Riddle was preceisely when his ears pricked up.
Also, I would say that on any reading, Harry was not proven to be able to keep Voldy out of his head by the end of book 5, nor even by the end of book 6. When Snape goes fishing for whatever he is fishing for in Harry's mind after he slashed Dracon up with the Sectum Sempra spell, the text reads that Harry knew what Snape was going to do next and he had never learned how to stop him properly, meaning legilimency and occlumency. Add to that the fact that when DD showed Harry the whole prophecy, in the narrative of the whole text of the whole series, it is before book 6 where DD smiles and looks pleased with himself and explains that he was correct in guessing that after the atrium attempt to possess Harry Voldy would now be employing occlumency against Harry.
The end of book 5 showing Harry the prophecy may be done more out of a firm intuition on the part of a very wise man who knows the soundness of his own thoughts and when and where they shift from sound decuction to more tenuous speculations - an intuition that, knowing how Voldy's mind works, now that he knows he cannot exploit that avenue fully he will see it as a liabitlity and close it off immediately - to the level that it is safe, only hours after the incident itself, to show Harry the very thing for which Voldy went to all this trouble - this is of course going with the surface reading and not somthing like John Granger's scar-o-scope theory, which I have a hard time buying as of yet but will just have to wait and see.
Either way, I don't think any of it rests on Harry being able to keep Voldy out of his head. On the surface the text says it is Voldy's choice after the atrium attempt to possess Harry (what Harry did in the atrium was not so much of an active exorcism of Voldy from himself as much as it was a simple cry that was brutally honest, honestly in anguish out of love for his godfather and just losing him, and it is voldy who cannot abide that sort of thing, just as Harry cannot abide direct possession by somebody like Voldy, and after that Voldy makes the choice to close the connection, but theoretically he might still be able to do legilemency and from a distance without getting too sick from exposrue to Harry's love thing, and Harry hasn't proven any ability to willfully expel Voldy or even employ occlumency effectively).
On something like Granger's scar-o-scope theory, unbenounced to Harry there has not been any keeping Voldy out of Harry's head and Voldy being in his head is the tool being used to lead Voldy into certain opinions, etc etc. Either way, none of it rests on Harry being able actively and intentionally to keep Voldy out of his head.