Not sure about Side-Alonging, but apparently in MoR it’s possible to apparate inanimate objects without a wizard going with them:
They were inside Hogwarts so they couldn’t automatically Apparate out any material that showed signs of spontaneous combustion
Off-topic: when looking up previous instances of apparation I found something funny.
Moody had once seen an addicted Dark Wizard go to ridiculous lengths to get a victim to lay hands on a certain exact portkey, instead of just having someone toss the target a trapped Knut on their next visit to town;
Why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah:
Harry was wondering exactly how they’d get there when Professor Quirrell said “Catch!” and threw a bronze Knut at him, and Harry caught it without thinking.
A giant intangible hook caught at Harry’s abdomen and yanked him back, hard, only without any sense of acceleration, and an instant later Harry was standing in the middle of Diagon Alley.
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.
Quirrell has tossed things to people who caught it without thinking at other times in the story. One example is in chapter 70, in which he is holding what is alleged to be a S.P.H.E.W. button and responding to Hermione’s explanation of what it takes to be a hero (specifically rather than ambition):
“You may be right about that,” said the Defense Professor, his eyes half-lidded. He tossed Hermione the button, and she caught it without thinking. “My donation to your cause, Miss Granger. I understand that they are worth two Sickles.”
In addition to questions about what that button might actually be and where it might come up later, including this current arc, there’s the point that Quirrell doesn’t seem to ever let anyone touch him. He does end up touching people in the Standford Prison Experiment arc, so it’s not that he can’t touch anyone. I expect it’s just to cover for the fact that he really can’t touch HJPEV.
Quirrell has tossed things to people who caught it without thinking at other times in the story.
I’m imagining him doing this a lot, for no real reason other than to amuse himself at the possibilities. I bet he’s in the habit of using magic to catch things moving toward him, too.
there’s the point that Quirrell doesn’t seem to ever let anyone touch him. He does end up touching people in the Standford Prison Experiment arc, so it’s not that he can’t touch anyone. I expect it’s just to cover for the fact that he really can’t touch HJPEV.
I thought that myself. (Plus I would expect him to be less than enthused about touching other people anyway.)
Not sure about Side-Alonging, but apparently in MoR it’s possible to apparate inanimate objects without a wizard going with them:
Off-topic: when looking up previous instances of apparation I found something funny.
Why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah:
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?
Quirrell has tossed things to people who caught it without thinking at other times in the story. One example is in chapter 70, in which he is holding what is alleged to be a S.P.H.E.W. button and responding to Hermione’s explanation of what it takes to be a hero (specifically rather than ambition):
In addition to questions about what that button might actually be and where it might come up later, including this current arc, there’s the point that Quirrell doesn’t seem to ever let anyone touch him. He does end up touching people in the Standford Prison Experiment arc, so it’s not that he can’t touch anyone. I expect it’s just to cover for the fact that he really can’t touch HJPEV.
I’m imagining him doing this a lot, for no real reason other than to amuse himself at the possibilities. I bet he’s in the habit of using magic to catch things moving toward him, too.
I thought that myself. (Plus I would expect him to be less than enthused about touching other people anyway.)