Yes, Eliezer made a great deal of noise in that Moody scene about the preposterousness of the whole Goblet of Fire plot. I happen to think it makes a good deal of sense if you use implicit clues elsewhere from the novels. Fudge starts to yell at Dumbledore in book 5 about creating an unauthorized Portkey on a whim. If it’s illegal to do that, it stands to reason that either the Ministry or Hogwarts might be able to detect unauthorized Portkeys.
So to get a Portkey near Harry surreptitiously, they had to cast a second Portus charm on an existing Portkey. The Triwizard Cup was supposed to be a Portkey to the maze entrance so as to declare the winner of the tournament. Crouch/Moody cast a second Portus on it to send Harry to the graveyard. Portus charms stack on top of each other, first-in first-out, so the second touch upon it activated the first charm, whose destination was the maze entrance.
None of this is stated explicitly, but almost all of it is implied with various levels of directness.
Yes, Eliezer made a great deal of noise in that Moody scene about the preposterousness of the whole Goblet of Fire plot.
That’s, by the way, a rather obvious criticism for Goblet of Fire, which I think I’ve heard several times independently (before HPMoR was written) and I came up with it myself after I read the book.
There are ways it can be made to make sense, as you say, but it’s still highly criticisable that the readers need to invent justifications like “fake-Moody needed to hijack a preexisting Ministry-approved Portkey” when JKR herself could have done inserted such a sentence for explanation.
It’s still be a rather stupidly elaborate plot, mind you. Just not as preposterous as before.
I also read a theory somewhere (can’t remember where) that if, in canon, Voldemort had killed Harry in the graveyard as intended, he and his crew could use the portkey’s return trip in order to wreak havoc upon Hogwarts; they can’t just apparate in, and all the ministry officials would be trapped there for them to slaughter, without escape routes.
Yes, Eliezer made a great deal of noise in that Moody scene about the preposterousness of the whole Goblet of Fire plot. I happen to think it makes a good deal of sense if you use implicit clues elsewhere from the novels. Fudge starts to yell at Dumbledore in book 5 about creating an unauthorized Portkey on a whim. If it’s illegal to do that, it stands to reason that either the Ministry or Hogwarts might be able to detect unauthorized Portkeys.
So to get a Portkey near Harry surreptitiously, they had to cast a second Portus charm on an existing Portkey. The Triwizard Cup was supposed to be a Portkey to the maze entrance so as to declare the winner of the tournament. Crouch/Moody cast a second Portus on it to send Harry to the graveyard. Portus charms stack on top of each other, first-in first-out, so the second touch upon it activated the first charm, whose destination was the maze entrance.
None of this is stated explicitly, but almost all of it is implied with various levels of directness.
That’s, by the way, a rather obvious criticism for Goblet of Fire, which I think I’ve heard several times independently (before HPMoR was written) and I came up with it myself after I read the book.
There are ways it can be made to make sense, as you say, but it’s still highly criticisable that the readers need to invent justifications like “fake-Moody needed to hijack a preexisting Ministry-approved Portkey” when JKR herself could have done inserted such a sentence for explanation.
It’s still be a rather stupidly elaborate plot, mind you. Just not as preposterous as before.
I also read a theory somewhere (can’t remember where) that if, in canon, Voldemort had killed Harry in the graveyard as intended, he and his crew could use the portkey’s return trip in order to wreak havoc upon Hogwarts; they can’t just apparate in, and all the ministry officials would be trapped there for them to slaughter, without escape routes.
Uh, yeah. I was just remarking that Moody and Quirrell seem to have remarkably similar thought processes, right down to the denomination of coin used.
The idea is meant to be obvious, to anyone who’s at all devious. I’d be more confused if they didn’t both think of it.
As far as denomination, it just makes sense to use the smallest coin.
How about stealing one of the bazillion portkeys being used internationally to get wizards to the World Cup?