Okay, so I know I should be using this blog to promote Beer Run, which is available here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BLSVRZN5, but I’ve need to talk about something that has been bugging me for a while. I think I found a flaw in the Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. I don’t mean things like “Harry is a Gary Stu” or “there are too many adverbs.” I mean a plot hole. Spoiler alert for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer Stone, though if you need a spoiler alert for this book, I’m going to ask you if would like to meet President Biden because apparently you’re a martian.

Okay, by comparison, let’s look at Indiana Jones and the Raiders of Lost Ark. It has been pointed out that Indy objectively accomplished nothing in that movie. He sets out to keep the Nazis from the Ark, and he fails. In the end, the Nazis get the Ark, and it kills all of them. Best case scenario, they take it all the way to Berlin and open it in front of Hitler and the rest of the Nazi leadership. I think Cracked pointed this out, and then the Big Bang Theory did, though inevitably there have been Reddit posts about this. Indy should have just stayed at home.

Now, let’s look at Harry’s decision in the Sorcerer’s Stone (or the Philosopher’s Stone if your British), to go down into the maze and protect the stone. Hell, let’s say he and Ron and Hermione never bother getting interested in the stone in the first place and just spend their time doing normal 11-year-old wizard stuff. What happens? Well, the last protection the stone has is the Mirror of the Erised, and Quirrell can’t crack it. The Mirror of the Erised shows those who gaze upon it whatever their deepest heart’s desire is. The catch is that it will only surrender the stone to someone who wants to have the stone, but not someone who wants to use it. Quirrell just sees himself resurrecting Voldemort. It’s not until Harry steps in front of the mirror that the stone materializes in his pocket.

So, what if Harry just decides to go to bed early that night? Simple, Quirrell and Voldemort don’t get the stone. Indeed, Voldemort only gets close to the stone precisely because Harry shows up right when Voldemort needs him to. Looking at it objectively, it would have been better if he just listened to Prof. McGonagall and did nothing. Then he could have at least played quidditch and won the cup.

Now, this is a children’s book, which is often forgotten, but it still bothers me. Certainly, Dumbledore must understand this. He’s an intelligent man. Why didn’t he tell Harry that he acted like an idiot, other than, you know, the fact that this is a book? Why reward Harry for thinking that he was able to protect the stone better than Dumbledore and every other teacher at the school combined? Above all, why give Gryffindor the house cup and thus ensure that Lucius Malfory’s attorney sends him a rather angry letter?

Now, the argument may be made that this looks at Harry’s actions purely from a utilitarian standpoint, when Dumbledore might be looking at this from a virtue ethics perspective. Sure, the consequences of Harry’s actions might have been bad, though ultimately, they weren’t, but his actions improve his moral character, which is what’s really important.

Except, no, it wasn’t improving his moral character. Instead, it exacerbated his greatest flaw: his need to be a hero. Sometimes, like in the Chamber of Secrets or in the last book, this flaw becomes a virtue, but other times it gets people killed. No, really, in the fifth book, Harry decides only he can save Sirius, and ends up walking into a trap that gets Sirius killed. And he does this while his friends, who know him pretty well, tell him to his face that this is a trap set up for him because his enemies know he needs to be a hero. Dumbledore sugar coats it for him, but in the end, Harry’s at fault. Though, Dumbledore is a little easy on Harry, likely because he encouraged Harry to be this way. Whenever Harry risked his life, and others, Dumbledore responded by giving Harry points for Gryffindor up and till the point someone died. After all, most of the time when Harry does this sort of thing, it works out.

Now, I did search for people who have noticed this same problem on the wide world of the internet, and yes, a few people on Quora and Reddit have pointed out that without Harry, Quirrell couldn’t do shit. Still, I can’t remember any major cultural heavyweight to bring this up. Why? It’s sitting right there in plain view! If someone can point to some place where this has been extensively discussed, I’d appreciate it. Am I off base and missing something in this situation? Tell me, I’d love to hear it. And buy Beer Run. Here’s the link again: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BLSVRZN5.