WTFAW: Harry Potter

Well… This will be interesting…

Not long ago, as I was doing nothing (as I am wont to do) I came across a couple of theories about Harry Potter. Since I’m now writing about Harry Potter, It’s probably obvious that these theories were very, very stupid.

Dave: Well, I’m looking forward to this! Aren’t you?

Oh, sure! Telling Harry Potter fans that their theories are wrong. There is no way this will end badly…

Let’s get on with the first theory!

Dave: Ok, how about this! Draco Malfoy is a werewolf!

Right… Let’s go over the arguments, shall we?

Dave: Well, Draco, at first, seems pretty into the whole death eater thing, right?


Dave: But later on, in the sixth book,  he starts looking worn, stressed out, pale (more than usual, I mean), and depressed, to the point where he confides in Moaning Myrtle. I’m sure there’s some joke in there…

Stick to the point, Dave.

Dave: Sorry. Anyway, the reason for this might actually be because Draco Malfoy was turned into a werewolf!

Right. Silly question. How?

Dave: Fenrir Greyback did it! He’s known to bite young kids so they grow up resenting humanity. And he’s a member of Voldemorts entourage.

Second silly question. Why?

Dave: Voldemort ordered him to do it, in order to punish Lucius Malfoy for failing him.

Right. Let’s go over why this does not make any sense.

I’m guessing nobody cares about the fact that Remus Lupin, the previous werewolf who was a student at Hogwarts, had to hide in the Shrieking Shack to avoid detection?

Dave: Well, maybe Draco hid there as well?

And nobody noticed that after what, 25 years, the Shrieking Shack has suddenly started shrieking again? That’s not something that gets any notice what so ever?

But hey, maybe they picked another hiding place. But in any case, they’re obviously not so stupid they’d let Draco run free among ordinary people as a werewolf, since that kind of crap would get him noticed.

This means he would have to hurt himself, just like Lupin did. And yet, at no point do we see Draco with mysterious cuts or bruises.

Then there’s the problem with the idea of Voldemort deciding to make Draco a werewolf. Voldemort, who is all about wizards of pure blood, decided to turn Draco Malfoy, a pure-blood wizard, into a werewolf.

Doesn’t that go against his whole philosophy a bit?

Truly pure-blooded wizard families, as we’ve been shown, are fairly rare. And he has just made sure that the only child in a pure-blood family is now impure, infected with lycanthropy.

That doesn’t sound like a very good plan to establish pure-blooded dominance, does it?

Dave: But what about his changed appearance?

Good point. You are right that Draco looks haggard. Now, this could be because he’s a werewolf…

OR it could be because Voldemort has ordered him to repair an old, broken magical artifact, right under the nose of Dumbledore, the borderline omniscient headmaster. Oh, and remember the second part of his mission? The part where he has to KILL Dumbledore, the aforementioned borderline omniscient headmaster, known throughout the world as the greatest wizard the world has ever known?

Dave: Uhm….

And he has to do all of this, while also trying to keep up with his schoolwork to avoid suspicion, all while being fully aware that not only will he without a doubt be expelled and possibly sent to Azkaban if he’s discovered, but also that he and his family will almost certainly be tortured and maybe even killed by Voldemort, should he refuse or fail.

You think that might have something to do with him being stressed out and depressed?

Dave: Well, I…

Not to mention that turning Draco into a werewolf would just be a big hindrance in voldemorts attack on Hogwarts, since it’d mean Draco’s attempts to repair the magical closet would be delayed once a month by a violent transformation!

Dave: I suppose…

Exactly. Let’s move on, shall we?

Dave: Right. The next theory is that The reason the Dursleys are such assholes is because Harry is a Horcrux.

OK. Talk me through this one.

Dave: Well, we know that Harry is a Horcrux, and we know that, during the time Harry, Ron and Hermione tried to find a way to destroy Salazar Slytherin’s locket, they all suffered the effects of the locket, getting more agitated and irritable. Ginny Weasley spent a year with the horcrux-diary in the second book, which nearly killed her. Couldn’t the Dursleys have been affected by Harry, who was also a Horcrux?

Right. First of all, Ron, Harry and Hermione suffered the effects of the Horcrux only while they wore it. Ginny suffered the effects of the diary because she kept pouring her heart out to it which fed the soul fragment inside, to the point where it started to take her over, and then put her in a magically induced coma. It wasn’t just being around the diary that harmed her, but using it.

Dave: But the Dursleys spent over a decade living in the same house as Harry. Surely that could have had an effect?

I would maybe agree, if anyone else suffered in some way by being around Harry. And yet nobody at Hogwarts seemed to be affected by him. Hermione and Ron spent months being around him and they only started developing symptoms from the locket. If they both have an effect, why is Harry’s influence that much weaker?

Oh, and yes, the Dursleys were assholes during Harry’s childhood… Do you remember the first chapter of the first book? THEY WERE ASSHOLES BEFORE HARRY GOT THERE!

Dave: But they took in Harry when he was a baby! Surely, that’s a sign of kindness!

Oh, sure! The Dursleys took him in with open arms and treated him as a member of the family, didn’t they?

After all, that’s why they kept Harry under the stairs, and moved him to a bigger room only AFTER he was given a letter from Hogwarts. And giving him Dudley’s old clothes? Truly a selfless act!

It’s not like they were in any way, shape or form reluctant about taking him in, right?

After all, what was that line from The Order of the Phoenix again…?

“[Aunt Petunia] doesn’t love me,” said Harry at once. “She doesn’t give a damn —”

But she took you,” Dumbledore cut across him. “She may have taken you grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you

Clearly, their behavior is because Harry is a horcrux and has nothing at all to do with the fact that they are terrible people in general and that Harry represents A WORLD THEY HATE AND FEAR!

Next theory!

Dave: Uh… Right! Ok… Ginny actually dosed Harry with a love potion!

And you base that on what?

Dave: On how suddenly Harry falls in love with her!

Is that all?

Dave: Well, we know that Ginny likes Harry, and that Harry doesn’t really reciprocate until the sixth book. Maybe she gave into the temptation?

Yeah, because that worked out so well during the second book! Remember how her obsession almost killed her?

Dave: Yeah, but…

And you’re saying she conveniently decides “That didn’t count! I’m going to try and MAKE him love me”, and starts dosing him with love potions. And having done that, she then decided to…. start dating other people…?

Dave: A ruse…?

Harry, meanwhile, does not act like he’s influenced by a love potion. Remember, we SEE the effect of love potions in that very same book. Compare his behavior to that of Ron towards Romilda, and you might notice that Harry shows no loss of inhibitions or exaggerated obsession. He is also very conflicted between his feelings towards Ginny and his fear of betraying Rons trust.

Dave: Heh, sounds lik-

And I swear to God, Dave, if you say the words slash-fic, I will rip your kidneys out through your nose. You know perfectly well what I mean.

Dave: Aw, fine!

Anyway, during the seventh book, he spends months away from Ginny after them becoming a couple, actually going so far as breaking up with her, in order to keep her safe.

If he was under the influence of a love potion, shouldn’t he have just shrugged off the whole “Voldermort is going to take over the world” thing and just be with Ginny? During that time, his feelings towards her doesn’t change at all. It’s almost like it’s genuine love, or something!

See, in order for this theory to work, it’d mean Ginny, who loves Harry oh-so-dearly, decides to drug him and keep him drugged for the rest of his life.

Tell me, Does Ginny Weasley seem like the kind of person who’d do something like that to someone they love?

Dave: Maybe she just used enough to encourage the feelings or-

So fucking what!? That’s still forcibly changing his mind and emotions. Does that sound like something Ginny would do?

Especially in a story where an overarcing focus is placed on the power and importance of love, both parental and romantic! In this book alone, we see the dangers of enforced, artificial love in the form of Merope Gaunt and Tom Riddle!

And you want to take a relationship meant to portray naturally blooming love, meant as a contrast to that, and completely invalidate it?

Dave: Well, I….

Be honest. This is just because you think Harry should have ended up with Hermione, isn’t it?

Dave:… No! That’s…. stupid! That has nothing to do with this!

Sure. Whatever you say.

Let’s take one last theory.

Dave: What if Dumbledore is actually an elderly Ron Weasley?

… What?

Dave: I said, what if Dumble-

Yes, I got that part. What the hell are you talking about? You’re trying to convince me that Ron Weasley is the greatest wizard who has ever lived? Ron Weasley!?

Explain yourself!

Dave: Well, we know almost nothing about Dumbledore’s past! The reason for his secrecy is that he is actually Ron, from the future! As it is, Dumbledore is just a plot device getting people out of problems, by virtue of being a wise wizard. According to this theory, he has lived through it before, which is why he appears so clever and wise! Just look at the two characters. They’re both redheads.

Yeah, because they are unique in all of the wizard world to share that trait, aren’t they?

(Let’s ignore the fact that Dumbledore’s hair was Auburn when he was young, and Ron has ginger hair….)

Dave: They both like chocolate.

Again, unlike the rest of the wizard world…

Dave: They both have large hands…

You’re running out of arguments.

Dave: Uhm… Oh! You know the chess game in the first book? Ron played a knight, didn’t he?

Yes. So what?

Dave: Well, that would make Dumbledore a king, wouldn’t it?

Not sure if I follow…

Also, if we’re going with the chess metaphor, I’m pretty sure Harry would be the king, being the main character and all…

Dave: And what does Slytherin sing when they mock Ron? Weasley is our king! Clearly that’s a clue that Dumbledore and Ron are the same person!

You know… I’m not even going to dignify that last argument with a counterargument. Instead, I want you to answer me this. Why?

Dave: What?

Why did Ron travel back in time?

Dave: Uh… maybe he wanted to change history?

Then why didn’t he just kill Voldemort as a kid? Why does he let the little shit live if he wanted to change history?

Dave: Because the future is already determined and-

Which would make the time travelling completely fucking pointless!

Dave: But… it makes sense if-

No! You do NOT get to use that sentence in regards of this theory!

First of all, we know loads about Dumbledores past! We know where he was born. We know that his sister was attacked by muggles and was left scarred. We know his father was sent to Azkaban for seeking revenge. We know he spent many years in his youth searching for the Deathly Hallows together with Gellert Grindelwald.

We know the names of members of his family, including his late sister Ariana. We know his childhood friends, details about his school years, We know the awards he has received during his life, and in what year he got them.

Are you seriously trying to convince me that Ron, in his old age, travelled back in time, somehow became a child again, was adopted by a family and lived out Dumbledores entire life to accomplish all of that?

Dave: Well, maybe he-

Or maybe you mean to say that he travelled back in time and then just FAKED his entire life story, which would include brainwashing god knows how many people to keep his true past secret?

Are you out of your fucking mind?!

Oh, and there’s that teeny, tiny little detail… what was it… oh yeah!

Ron Weasley had an entire family together with the woman he loved by the end of the story.

Albus Dumbledore, on the other hand, was quite literally a gay bachelor.

The only way this theory makes sense (and I use that term quite wrongly) is if Ron, somehow, managed to reincarnate himself retroactively into being born as Dumbledore!

And no, that did not fucking happen!

These theories are all pretty stupid, but that’s nothing new.

This last one, however, is possibly the dumbest theory I have ever read. I can’t believe someone was stupid enough to not only conceive it, but write it down, and think “Yes, this makes sense”. I couldn’t make up something this stupid if I fucking TRIED!

And the fact that people actually BELIEVE it makes me think Voldemort had the right idea in  wanting us all wiped from the face of the earth. Clearly, nothing of value would be lost.

Dave: That’s a little harsh, isn’t it?

Maybe. But I don’t really care.

I’m sure I’ve probably pissed off some Harry Potter fans by bringing rational thinking into this. All I have to do now is wait for a bunch of rabid people in flowing robes to beat me to death with broomsticks.

Until then, I’m gonna keep writing about stupid fan theories. After all, it’s not like they’re going to run out anytime soon.

Back to Main Page



I’d like to start this post by talking about something a bit out of the ordinary. I want to talk about books.

I mentioned it before, but I’m a big fan of Science Fiction, most prominently the stories by Isaac Asimov. With that said, however, I must admit that my favourite sci-fi story is Frankenstein; Or the Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley.

The story, considered one of the first sci-fi stories ever made, was written in 1818 as a horror story. However, after about two centuries, I must admit that the horror has lost some if its impact, since movies and games have left us somewhat desensitized…

That is why it’s a good thing the book still remains an amazing story, touching on issues of morality, philosophy, the dangers of knowledge and ambition, and indeed human nature itself.

As you can tell, I am a big fan of the original story. This of course means I’ve come across more than one adaptation of the story.

With that in mind, I have a few issues with those adaptations.

First of all, why is it so hard to get the Creature right?

This may sound like an odd question, but it is nevertheless a valid one. It’s very strange that not one single adaptation manages to get the look right, when the book actually gives a detailed description of the Creature!

His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness […] his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips.

How is that difficult? How come nobody, in adapting the story, ever took the time to look up what the Creature should look like?!

And while I’m discussing the Creature, I’d like to settle something once and for all.

The name of the Creature.

The Creature is not named Frankenstein. It was never meant to be named Frankenstein. You shouldn’t refer to it as Frankenstein, and if you do, you are wrong.

Now, some of you might argue that “Of course you can call the Creature Frankenstein! He is technically the son of Victor Frankenstein, and as such, he would have the same last name”.

But the problem is, he ISN’T Frankenstein’s son! He doesn’t refer to himself as Frankenstein, and only once in the entire story does he refer to Frankenstein as his father! More than anything, he refers to him as his Creator.

During his early life, he came across a copy of “Paradise Lost” by John Milton. A huge part of the Creatures character is how he identifies with Adam and, later, with Lucifer.

This parallel is clearly pointed out during their first real meeting, when he retells his story. 

Remember that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the Fallen Angel. 

 They call the creature many things in the story. Daemon, Monster, Ogre, Fiend, Creature, Wretch, Devil. But never Frankenstein.

Not to mention that his lack of a name is also a huge part of his character! He is denied the most basic human rights, including a name!

Of course, a big reason he is called Frankenstein is because of the 1931 movie with Boris Karloff, the most iconic version of the story.

Where, might I add, the Creature could barely speak or walk, instead of being fast, agile and incredibly eloquent… Oh, and guess what! In that movie, he wasn’t called Frankenstein either!

Boris Karloff was credited as “?”.


Which leads me to my final piece of confusion.

Why isn’t there a proper adaptation of this story?

Am I just missing something, and this story is just impossible to make into a script?

In 80 years of cinema, the closest adaptation we’ve got is either the 1994 version with Robert de Niro or the 2006 mini series with Luke Goss. But with both versions, they took several artistic liberties with the story, that weren’t needed!

You’d think that, in this day and age, with the technology we have at our disposal, we’d get an adaptation of this amazing story. Surely someone would be able to take this story and adapt it?

After almost 200 years of waiting, will Mary Shelley’s immortal classic get the adaptation it deserves?

No, of course not! Instead we get fucking I. Frankenstein!

And no, I haven’t seen it, and I’m not going to! If I want to see a bad adaptation of this story, I’ll just watch Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein! Sure, that’s still a bad adaptation, but it’s also a great movie!

At least with that movie, I’m too busy laughing at a great comedy, to be seething with frustration over being denied a proper adaptation yet again!

And if you want to watch it ironically, because you want a movie that’s so bad it’s good, I’ve got news for you! There’s already a Frankenstein adaptation that’s so bad it’s good!

It’s called Van Helsing!