How can Newt cast Accio on a Niffler when it is only supposed to work on inanimate objects? [duplicate]
This question already has an answer here:
Can this inconsistency in the ability of the Summoning Charm (Accio) to summon animals be explained?
1 answer
Accio is not supposed to work on people or creatures as per this source:
Why couldn’t Newt use ‘Accio’ to retrieve all his beasts?
‘Accio’ only works on inanimate objects. While people or creatures may be indirectly moved by ‘Accio-ing’ objects that they are wearing or holding, this carries all kinds of risks because of the likelihood of injury to the person or beast attached to an object travelling at close to the speed of light.
JK Rowling’s New Website
Yet in the new film Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald Newt casts 'Accio' on a Niffler to get it back to him. He specifically says 'Accio Niffler'.
Doesn’t this break the rules set by JK?
harry-potter spells fantastic-beasts magical-theory the-crimes-of-grindelwald
edited Mar 19 at 21:20
Bellatrix
77.7k15332387
asked Mar 18 at 16:13
GamerGyppsGamerGypps
275110
marked as duplicate by Alex harry-potter
Users with the harry-potter badge can single-handedly close harry-potter questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Mar 18 at 22:35
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
|
show 2 more comments
This question already has an answer here:
Can this inconsistency in the ability of the Summoning Charm (Accio) to summon animals be explained?
1 answer
Accio is not supposed to work on people or creatures as per this source:
Why couldn’t Newt use ‘Accio’ to retrieve all his beasts?
‘Accio’ only works on inanimate objects. While people or creatures may be indirectly moved by ‘Accio-ing’ objects that they are wearing or holding, this carries all kinds of risks because of the likelihood of injury to the person or beast attached to an object travelling at close to the speed of light.
JK Rowling’s New Website
Yet in the new film Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald Newt casts 'Accio' on a Niffler to get it back to him. He specifically says 'Accio Niffler'.
Doesn’t this break the rules set by JK?
harry-potter spells fantastic-beasts magical-theory the-crimes-of-grindelwald
edited Mar 19 at 21:20
Bellatrix
77.7k15332387
asked Mar 18 at 16:13
GamerGyppsGamerGypps
275110
marked as duplicate by Alex harry-potter
Users with the harry-potter badge can single-handedly close harry-potter questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Mar 18 at 22:35
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
14
JKR breaks the rules set by JKR...
– TheLethalCarrot
Mar 18 at 16:14
3
@TheLethalCarrot While this is true, it still a glaring mistake.
– GamerGypps
Mar 18 at 16:23
5
Glaring mistakes and broken ret-cons seemed to be par for the course with JKR. So I believe the answer to your question is yes, it breaks her own rules.
– Virusbomb
Mar 18 at 16:30
1
This seems like a duplicate of scifi.stackexchange.com/q/207433/100430 but I can’t close it since it has no answer.
– Alex
Mar 18 at 16:36
Notably this is not her new (new) website but her old (new) website. It has since been superceded
– Valorum
Mar 18 at 16:50
|
show 2 more comments
This question already has an answer here:
Can this inconsistency in the ability of the Summoning Charm (Accio) to summon animals be explained?
1 answer
Accio is not supposed to work on people or creatures as per this source:
Why couldn’t Newt use ‘Accio’ to retrieve all his beasts?
‘Accio’ only works on inanimate objects. While people or creatures may be indirectly moved by ‘Accio-ing’ objects that they are wearing or holding, this carries all kinds of risks because of the likelihood of injury to the person or beast attached to an object travelling at close to the speed of light.
JK Rowling’s New Website
Yet in the new film Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald Newt casts 'Accio' on a Niffler to get it back to him. He specifically says 'Accio Niffler'.
Doesn’t this break the rules set by JK?
harry-potter spells fantastic-beasts magical-theory the-crimes-of-grindelwald
edited Mar 19 at 21:20
Bellatrix
77.7k15332387
asked Mar 18 at 16:13
GamerGyppsGamerGypps
275110
This question already has an answer here:
Can this inconsistency in the ability of the Summoning Charm (Accio) to summon animals be explained?
1 answer
Accio is not supposed to work on people or creatures as per this source:
Why couldn’t Newt use ‘Accio’ to retrieve all his beasts?
‘Accio’ only works on inanimate objects. While people or creatures may be indirectly moved by ‘Accio-ing’ objects that they are wearing or holding, this carries all kinds of risks because of the likelihood of injury to the person or beast attached to an object travelling at close to the speed of light.
JK Rowling’s New Website
Yet in the new film Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald Newt casts 'Accio' on a Niffler to get it back to him. He specifically says 'Accio Niffler'.
Doesn’t this break the rules set by JK?
This question already has an answer here:
Can this inconsistency in the ability of the Summoning Charm (Accio) to summon animals be explained?
1 answer
harry-potter spells fantastic-beasts magical-theory the-crimes-of-grindelwald
harry-potter spells fantastic-beasts magical-theory the-crimes-of-grindelwald
edited Mar 19 at 21:20
Bellatrix
77.7k15332387
asked Mar 18 at 16:13
GamerGyppsGamerGypps
275110
edited Mar 19 at 21:20
Bellatrix
77.7k15332387
asked Mar 18 at 16:13
GamerGyppsGamerGypps
275110
edited Mar 19 at 21:20
Bellatrix
77.7k15332387
edited Mar 19 at 21:20
Bellatrix
77.7k15332387
edited Mar 19 at 21:20
Bellatrix
77.7k15332387
77.7k15332387
asked Mar 18 at 16:13
GamerGyppsGamerGypps
275110
asked Mar 18 at 16:13
GamerGyppsGamerGypps
275110
asked Mar 18 at 16:13
GamerGyppsGamerGypps
275110
275110
marked as duplicate by Alex harry-potter
Users with the harry-potter badge can single-handedly close harry-potter questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Mar 18 at 22:35
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Alex harry-potter
Users with the harry-potter badge can single-handedly close harry-potter questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Mar 18 at 22:35
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
14
JKR breaks the rules set by JKR...
– TheLethalCarrot
Mar 18 at 16:14
3
@TheLethalCarrot While this is true, it still a glaring mistake.
– GamerGypps
Mar 18 at 16:23
5
Glaring mistakes and broken ret-cons seemed to be par for the course with JKR. So I believe the answer to your question is yes, it breaks her own rules.
– Virusbomb
Mar 18 at 16:30
1
This seems like a duplicate of scifi.stackexchange.com/q/207433/100430 but I can’t close it since it has no answer.
– Alex
Mar 18 at 16:36
Notably this is not her new (new) website but her old (new) website. It has since been superceded
– Valorum
Mar 18 at 16:50
|
show 2 more comments
14
JKR breaks the rules set by JKR...
– TheLethalCarrot
Mar 18 at 16:14
3
@TheLethalCarrot While this is true, it still a glaring mistake.
– GamerGypps
Mar 18 at 16:23
5
Glaring mistakes and broken ret-cons seemed to be par for the course with JKR. So I believe the answer to your question is yes, it breaks her own rules.
– Virusbomb
Mar 18 at 16:30
1
This seems like a duplicate of scifi.stackexchange.com/q/207433/100430 but I can’t close it since it has no answer.
– Alex
Mar 18 at 16:36
Notably this is not her new (new) website but her old (new) website. It has since been superceded
– Valorum
Mar 18 at 16:50
14
14
JKR breaks the rules set by JKR...
– TheLethalCarrot
Mar 18 at 16:14
JKR breaks the rules set by JKR...
– TheLethalCarrot
Mar 18 at 16:14
3
3
@TheLethalCarrot While this is true, it still a glaring mistake.
– GamerGypps
Mar 18 at 16:23
@TheLethalCarrot While this is true, it still a glaring mistake.
– GamerGypps
Mar 18 at 16:23
5
5
Glaring mistakes and broken ret-cons seemed to be par for the course with JKR. So I believe the answer to your question is yes, it breaks her own rules.
– Virusbomb
Mar 18 at 16:30
Glaring mistakes and broken ret-cons seemed to be par for the course with JKR. So I believe the answer to your question is yes, it breaks her own rules.
– Virusbomb
Mar 18 at 16:30
1
1
This seems like a duplicate of scifi.stackexchange.com/q/207433/100430 but I can’t close it since it has no answer.
– Alex
Mar 18 at 16:36
This seems like a duplicate of scifi.stackexchange.com/q/207433/100430 but I can’t close it since it has no answer.
– Alex
Mar 18 at 16:36
Notably this is not her new (new) website but her old (new) website. It has since been superceded
– Valorum
Mar 18 at 16:50
Notably this is not her new (new) website but her old (new) website. It has since been superceded
– Valorum
Mar 18 at 16:50
|
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Accio has been used on creatures before.
In the Harry Potter series, creatures have been successfully summoned by using Accio before, and aren’t harmed by it. Harry successfully Summoned Neville’s toad Trevor.
“I’m almost certain of it,’ said Hermione grimly. ‘Watch your frog, it’s escaping.’
Harry pointed his wand at the bullfrog that had been hopping hopefully towards the other side of the table – ‘Accio!’ – and it zoomed gloomily back into his hand.”
- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 18 (Dumbledore’s Army)
Also, Ted Tonks successfully Summons salmon out of a river.
“There ought to be a few salmon in here, or d’you reckon it’s too early in the season? Accio salmon!’
There were several distinct splashes and then the slapping sounds of fish against flesh.”
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15 (The Goblin’s Revenge)
Therefore, the answer by JKR contradicts the book.
answered Mar 18 at 16:42
BellatrixBellatrix
77.7k15332387
2
It's worth mentioning that book canon is separate from movie canon, and both are separate from Rowling's "word of God". Questions and answers should be more specific about which canon they're talking about.
– only_pro
Mar 18 at 21:26
Also don't forget about the fly that Harry accio'ed in Divination class while practicing the spell for the challenge. We still don't whether Harry managed to do it , or the fly was stupid to fly to his hand :)
– atayenel
Mar 18 at 21:29
2
I guess creatures like frogs and fish are more likely to fail their spell saves.
– Sycorax
Mar 18 at 22:14
add a comment |
I'd argue that though JKR said that objects travel close to the speed of light on that website, that all of her writings in the books seem to contradict this. She seems to describe objects as appearing to fly through the air, rather than instantaneously teleporting, which is how traveling near the speed of light a very short distance would appear to a person.
Additionally, there are examples in the books of people using Accio on living things, such as Harry Accio'ing the toad he was practicing the silencing charm on. As late as book 7, "Accio salmon" is successfully used, however, as the intent was to eat the salmon, there was no concern about killing the salmon with sudden g-forces. See the wiki page for the Summoning Charm for more info on this.
Therefore, I see that blog post as the contradiction, rather than the Accio'ing of the Niffler.
edited Mar 20 at 15:04
TheLethalCarrot
48.9k19263310
answered Mar 18 at 16:34
KaiKai
5,2772029
Not to mention that having macro objects travel near the speed of light is very unhealthy: what-if.xkcd.com/1
– Paul Johnson
Mar 20 at 21:24
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Accio has been used on creatures before.
In the Harry Potter series, creatures have been successfully summoned by using Accio before, and aren’t harmed by it. Harry successfully Summoned Neville’s toad Trevor.
“I’m almost certain of it,’ said Hermione grimly. ‘Watch your frog, it’s escaping.’
Harry pointed his wand at the bullfrog that had been hopping hopefully towards the other side of the table – ‘Accio!’ – and it zoomed gloomily back into his hand.”
- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 18 (Dumbledore’s Army)
Also, Ted Tonks successfully Summons salmon out of a river.
“There ought to be a few salmon in here, or d’you reckon it’s too early in the season? Accio salmon!’
There were several distinct splashes and then the slapping sounds of fish against flesh.”
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15 (The Goblin’s Revenge)
Therefore, the answer by JKR contradicts the book.
answered Mar 18 at 16:42
BellatrixBellatrix
77.7k15332387
2
It's worth mentioning that book canon is separate from movie canon, and both are separate from Rowling's "word of God". Questions and answers should be more specific about which canon they're talking about.
– only_pro
Mar 18 at 21:26
Also don't forget about the fly that Harry accio'ed in Divination class while practicing the spell for the challenge. We still don't whether Harry managed to do it , or the fly was stupid to fly to his hand :)
– atayenel
Mar 18 at 21:29
2
I guess creatures like frogs and fish are more likely to fail their spell saves.
– Sycorax
Mar 18 at 22:14
add a comment |
Accio has been used on creatures before.
In the Harry Potter series, creatures have been successfully summoned by using Accio before, and aren’t harmed by it. Harry successfully Summoned Neville’s toad Trevor.
“I’m almost certain of it,’ said Hermione grimly. ‘Watch your frog, it’s escaping.’
Harry pointed his wand at the bullfrog that had been hopping hopefully towards the other side of the table – ‘Accio!’ – and it zoomed gloomily back into his hand.”
- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 18 (Dumbledore’s Army)
Also, Ted Tonks successfully Summons salmon out of a river.
“There ought to be a few salmon in here, or d’you reckon it’s too early in the season? Accio salmon!’
There were several distinct splashes and then the slapping sounds of fish against flesh.”
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15 (The Goblin’s Revenge)
Therefore, the answer by JKR contradicts the book.
answered Mar 18 at 16:42
BellatrixBellatrix
77.7k15332387
2
It's worth mentioning that book canon is separate from movie canon, and both are separate from Rowling's "word of God". Questions and answers should be more specific about which canon they're talking about.
– only_pro
Mar 18 at 21:26
Also don't forget about the fly that Harry accio'ed in Divination class while practicing the spell for the challenge. We still don't whether Harry managed to do it , or the fly was stupid to fly to his hand :)
– atayenel
Mar 18 at 21:29
2
I guess creatures like frogs and fish are more likely to fail their spell saves.
– Sycorax
Mar 18 at 22:14
add a comment |
Accio has been used on creatures before.
In the Harry Potter series, creatures have been successfully summoned by using Accio before, and aren’t harmed by it. Harry successfully Summoned Neville’s toad Trevor.
“I’m almost certain of it,’ said Hermione grimly. ‘Watch your frog, it’s escaping.’
Harry pointed his wand at the bullfrog that had been hopping hopefully towards the other side of the table – ‘Accio!’ – and it zoomed gloomily back into his hand.”
- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 18 (Dumbledore’s Army)
Also, Ted Tonks successfully Summons salmon out of a river.
“There ought to be a few salmon in here, or d’you reckon it’s too early in the season? Accio salmon!’
There were several distinct splashes and then the slapping sounds of fish against flesh.”
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15 (The Goblin’s Revenge)
Therefore, the answer by JKR contradicts the book.
answered Mar 18 at 16:42
BellatrixBellatrix
77.7k15332387
Accio has been used on creatures before.
In the Harry Potter series, creatures have been successfully summoned by using Accio before, and aren’t harmed by it. Harry successfully Summoned Neville’s toad Trevor.
“I’m almost certain of it,’ said Hermione grimly. ‘Watch your frog, it’s escaping.’
Harry pointed his wand at the bullfrog that had been hopping hopefully towards the other side of the table – ‘Accio!’ – and it zoomed gloomily back into his hand.”
- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 18 (Dumbledore’s Army)
Also, Ted Tonks successfully Summons salmon out of a river.
“There ought to be a few salmon in here, or d’you reckon it’s too early in the season? Accio salmon!’
There were several distinct splashes and then the slapping sounds of fish against flesh.”
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15 (The Goblin’s Revenge)
Therefore, the answer by JKR contradicts the book.
answered Mar 18 at 16:42
BellatrixBellatrix
77.7k15332387
edited Mar 18 at 22:37
answered Mar 18 at 16:42
BellatrixBellatrix
77.7k15332387
answered Mar 18 at 16:42
BellatrixBellatrix
77.7k15332387
answered Mar 18 at 16:42
BellatrixBellatrix
77.7k15332387
77.7k15332387
2
It's worth mentioning that book canon is separate from movie canon, and both are separate from Rowling's "word of God". Questions and answers should be more specific about which canon they're talking about.
– only_pro
Mar 18 at 21:26
Also don't forget about the fly that Harry accio'ed in Divination class while practicing the spell for the challenge. We still don't whether Harry managed to do it , or the fly was stupid to fly to his hand :)
– atayenel
Mar 18 at 21:29
2
I guess creatures like frogs and fish are more likely to fail their spell saves.
– Sycorax
Mar 18 at 22:14
add a comment |
2
It's worth mentioning that book canon is separate from movie canon, and both are separate from Rowling's "word of God". Questions and answers should be more specific about which canon they're talking about.
– only_pro
Mar 18 at 21:26
Also don't forget about the fly that Harry accio'ed in Divination class while practicing the spell for the challenge. We still don't whether Harry managed to do it , or the fly was stupid to fly to his hand :)
– atayenel
Mar 18 at 21:29
2
I guess creatures like frogs and fish are more likely to fail their spell saves.
– Sycorax
Mar 18 at 22:14
2
2
It's worth mentioning that book canon is separate from movie canon, and both are separate from Rowling's "word of God". Questions and answers should be more specific about which canon they're talking about.
– only_pro
Mar 18 at 21:26
It's worth mentioning that book canon is separate from movie canon, and both are separate from Rowling's "word of God". Questions and answers should be more specific about which canon they're talking about.
– only_pro
Mar 18 at 21:26
Also don't forget about the fly that Harry accio'ed in Divination class while practicing the spell for the challenge. We still don't whether Harry managed to do it , or the fly was stupid to fly to his hand :)
– atayenel
Mar 18 at 21:29
Also don't forget about the fly that Harry accio'ed in Divination class while practicing the spell for the challenge. We still don't whether Harry managed to do it , or the fly was stupid to fly to his hand :)
– atayenel
Mar 18 at 21:29
2
2
I guess creatures like frogs and fish are more likely to fail their spell saves.
– Sycorax
Mar 18 at 22:14
I guess creatures like frogs and fish are more likely to fail their spell saves.
– Sycorax
Mar 18 at 22:14
add a comment |
I'd argue that though JKR said that objects travel close to the speed of light on that website, that all of her writings in the books seem to contradict this. She seems to describe objects as appearing to fly through the air, rather than instantaneously teleporting, which is how traveling near the speed of light a very short distance would appear to a person.
Additionally, there are examples in the books of people using Accio on living things, such as Harry Accio'ing the toad he was practicing the silencing charm on. As late as book 7, "Accio salmon" is successfully used, however, as the intent was to eat the salmon, there was no concern about killing the salmon with sudden g-forces. See the wiki page for the Summoning Charm for more info on this.
Therefore, I see that blog post as the contradiction, rather than the Accio'ing of the Niffler.
edited Mar 20 at 15:04
TheLethalCarrot
48.9k19263310
answered Mar 18 at 16:34
KaiKai
5,2772029
Not to mention that having macro objects travel near the speed of light is very unhealthy: what-if.xkcd.com/1
– Paul Johnson
Mar 20 at 21:24
add a comment |
I'd argue that though JKR said that objects travel close to the speed of light on that website, that all of her writings in the books seem to contradict this. She seems to describe objects as appearing to fly through the air, rather than instantaneously teleporting, which is how traveling near the speed of light a very short distance would appear to a person.
Additionally, there are examples in the books of people using Accio on living things, such as Harry Accio'ing the toad he was practicing the silencing charm on. As late as book 7, "Accio salmon" is successfully used, however, as the intent was to eat the salmon, there was no concern about killing the salmon with sudden g-forces. See the wiki page for the Summoning Charm for more info on this.
Therefore, I see that blog post as the contradiction, rather than the Accio'ing of the Niffler.
edited Mar 20 at 15:04
TheLethalCarrot
48.9k19263310
answered Mar 18 at 16:34
KaiKai
5,2772029
Not to mention that having macro objects travel near the speed of light is very unhealthy: what-if.xkcd.com/1
– Paul Johnson
Mar 20 at 21:24
add a comment |
I'd argue that though JKR said that objects travel close to the speed of light on that website, that all of her writings in the books seem to contradict this. She seems to describe objects as appearing to fly through the air, rather than instantaneously teleporting, which is how traveling near the speed of light a very short distance would appear to a person.
Additionally, there are examples in the books of people using Accio on living things, such as Harry Accio'ing the toad he was practicing the silencing charm on. As late as book 7, "Accio salmon" is successfully used, however, as the intent was to eat the salmon, there was no concern about killing the salmon with sudden g-forces. See the wiki page for the Summoning Charm for more info on this.
Therefore, I see that blog post as the contradiction, rather than the Accio'ing of the Niffler.
edited Mar 20 at 15:04
TheLethalCarrot
48.9k19263310
answered Mar 18 at 16:34
KaiKai
5,2772029
I'd argue that though JKR said that objects travel close to the speed of light on that website, that all of her writings in the books seem to contradict this. She seems to describe objects as appearing to fly through the air, rather than instantaneously teleporting, which is how traveling near the speed of light a very short distance would appear to a person.
Additionally, there are examples in the books of people using Accio on living things, such as Harry Accio'ing the toad he was practicing the silencing charm on. As late as book 7, "Accio salmon" is successfully used, however, as the intent was to eat the salmon, there was no concern about killing the salmon with sudden g-forces. See the wiki page for the Summoning Charm for more info on this.
Therefore, I see that blog post as the contradiction, rather than the Accio'ing of the Niffler.
edited Mar 20 at 15:04
TheLethalCarrot
48.9k19263310
answered Mar 18 at 16:34
KaiKai
5,2772029
edited Mar 20 at 15:04
TheLethalCarrot
48.9k19263310
edited Mar 20 at 15:04
TheLethalCarrot
48.9k19263310
edited Mar 20 at 15:04
TheLethalCarrot
48.9k19263310
48.9k19263310
answered Mar 18 at 16:34
KaiKai
5,2772029
answered Mar 18 at 16:34
KaiKai
5,2772029
answered Mar 18 at 16:34
KaiKai
5,2772029
5,2772029
Not to mention that having macro objects travel near the speed of light is very unhealthy: what-if.xkcd.com/1
– Paul Johnson
Mar 20 at 21:24
add a comment |
Not to mention that having macro objects travel near the speed of light is very unhealthy: what-if.xkcd.com/1
– Paul Johnson
Mar 20 at 21:24
Not to mention that having macro objects travel near the speed of light is very unhealthy: what-if.xkcd.com/1
– Paul Johnson
Mar 20 at 21:24
Not to mention that having macro objects travel near the speed of light is very unhealthy: what-if.xkcd.com/1
– Paul Johnson
Mar 20 at 21:24
add a comment |
14
JKR breaks the rules set by JKR...
– TheLethalCarrot
Mar 18 at 16:14
3
@TheLethalCarrot While this is true, it still a glaring mistake.
– GamerGypps
Mar 18 at 16:23
5
Glaring mistakes and broken ret-cons seemed to be par for the course with JKR. So I believe the answer to your question is yes, it breaks her own rules.
– Virusbomb
Mar 18 at 16:30
1
This seems like a duplicate of scifi.stackexchange.com/q/207433/100430 but I can’t close it since it has no answer.
– Alex
Mar 18 at 16:36
Notably this is not her new (new) website but her old (new) website. It has since been superceded
– Valorum
Mar 18 at 16:50