(My apologies if this has been answered already, but I did not find this in a search. And this has been bugging me for awhile.)
If, according to the first book, “…Students may also bring an owl OR a cat OR a toad…”, why did Ron bring a rat to school? I do realize it would be a crucial point to the later books, but nowhere do I see anything about Ron being given an exception for a personal pet, Scabbers being none of the aforementioned animals. Errol (the ancient owl) belongs to the whole family, so he would not be bringing that. No other students seem to be given an exception for a German Shepard or a seeing-eye ferret, so did Ron just sneak him into the dorms? Or is this a “just deal with it” plot hole?
Any info, preferably from the books, would be welcome.
Hmm, never really thought about that. My guess would be that since Scabbers belonged to Percy and since Percy was such a respected student no one minded. Maybe it was a type of grandfather clause thing. Scabbers had been there for the past five years (maybe longer, I think Scabbers belonged to the older brothers before Percy) so no one wanted to cause a fuss getting rid of him.
That always rather bothered me as well. In my mind, at least, I’ve justified it in a similar way that Wolfian described – I’ve decided that perhaps upperclassmen are allowed to have rats, and that Scabbers is allowable as some sort of “legacy pet” from the older Weasleys. But as far as I remember, no answer to this is provided in the text.
Firstly, seriously, the books aren’t perfect. Some things are just wrong. Accept it. They’re still enjoyable.
Anyway, onto rationalisation. Perhaps they mean that you may not bring more than one of an owl, cat, or toad, but rats are OK. This could possibly be due to owls, etc, having specific purposes, whereas a rat is more of just a pet. Or maybe they were using ‘or’ as in ‘inclusive or’. Or maybe Ron just got away with it because enforcement of rules is incredably haphazard at hogwarts. Or perhaps there was more to the letter not read out ‘on screen’.
Oh, I accept the imperfections to a point. This is a minor one, compared to major plot holes the size of Rhode Island I’ve read in other books (ones the size of New Jersey). Just one of those niggling points that flies out of nowhere and smacks me upside the head while I’m driving down the road to work.
Just wanted to make sure that I hadn’t skipped over something somewhere in the books, or was missing page 100, paragraph 2, second sentence.
I’m finding other references that I seem to be missing, as far as other HP-related loiterature is concerned, primarily in a book by Roger Highfield, The Science of Harry Potter** (he also wrote The Science of Christmas, rather amusing book). In comparing magic and science in books 1 through 5 of the HP series, he mentions creature names I have never seen anywhere in the books, and gives the origin of the Golden Snitch as based on a similarly named, but rare creature (trying to type with one hand and look for the specific passage with the other). So, unless this guy is pulling stuff out of a nether orifice, or has an “in” with Rowling on books 6 & 7, I’m still thinking I’ve missed something in the books.
And yeah, they are a fun read, in between the studying.
** (it fell on my foot at the bookstore, and I always by things that fall on my foot, meaning I was meant to read them. The Straight Dope fell on my head, so here I am.
You mean the Golden Snitch as a replacement for a real animal? There were two supplemental Harry Potter books, one being “Quidditch Through the Ages” or something like that, and one the textbook of Harry’s for Care of Magical Creatures. They were small paperbacks to raise money for a charity. Mine are packed away somewhere or I’d get you the exact titles.
Okay, I do find Quidditch Through the Ages listed in the references section, but there are no endnote numerical references, so I can’t tell which article or book he is quoting from, unless it’s something blatently obvious like “Disruption of Auditory Spatial Working Memory by Inactivation of the Forebrain Archistriatum in Barn Owls” (Nature, 1996), “Oral Contraceptives in American and Medieval Times” (American Scientist, 1992) or The 85 Ways to Tie a Tie (Fink, Thomas, and Yong Mao, 1999).
Ha, the offending passage, p. 213: The End of Ethnobotany:
I am not a HP fan (I own the books, I like owls, but the similarity ends there), but it just irks me in general when I feel like I’ve skipped over something or haven’t gotten the correct information.
I don’t know about that; I’m the slowest reader I know and I still go through them in about two days.
From what I’ve read on here, it sounds like the Wheel of Time books are loiterature. (I gave up completely, one chapter into the second one). It’s just book after book of people standing around doing nothing.
In several of the books, Ron complains about what a stupid and embarassing pet a rat is. Most of the kids seem to want owls, or cats. My guess is that rats are not specifically banned, but that they are so “uncool” that no one really wants one, and therefore Hogwart’s doesn’t bother to mention them in the letter, because it’s assumed no one would really want one. Doesn’t the first book mention a boy bringing a large spider for a pet? Perhaps the letters list owls, cats and toads because those are the three most popular, but certain other animals are allowed.
Or perhaps Dumbledore made a special exception for the Weasleys because a rat was all they could afford.
Yup, it was a typo (hoping no one would notice), but it certainly fits the genre, especially in light of kaylasdad99’s observation (guilty as charged there, and B&N as well!).
