no, because i think it would ruin the fun for you of looking for them in the text...
and also, regrettably, because it involves defending jkr's talents as a writer, which was an unpopular move even before she jumped off the deep end.
jkr is demonstrably weak when it comes to writing certain themes, styles, and genres - she's abysmal at romance, for example, and one of the reasons why fans of proper fantasy writing tend not to like her is because she writes allegorically [i.e. grindelwald's war, as it's introduced in philosopher's stone, at least, is a pastiche of ww2] instead of creating her own world from the ground up.
but, she is an extremely good mystery writer. indeed, this is what the series is at heart - it's not fantasy literature, it's basically detective fiction.
all of the books are packed full of clues and red herrings, not only to their individual plots, but to their paired text in the series as a ring cycle [so 1 and 7, 2 and 6, 3 and 5, and 4 as the lynchpin], their position in two overlapping sequences [books 1, 3, 5 and 7 are all interconnected, as are books 2, 4 and 6], and their position in the seven-book arc as a whole.
so - for example - in chamber of secrets we have:
a clue to the book's individual plot - the basilisk's attacks stop while harry, rather than ginny, is in possession of tom riddle's diary
a red herring to the individual plot - ginny's apparent embarrassment at seeing harry receive the singing valentine misdirects the reader away from the fact that she's actually horrified to have seen him with the diary
a clue to the book's pair in the ring cycle - harry hides from draco and lucius malfoy in the vanishing cabinet in borgin and burkes, which will go on to play a central role in the denouement of half-blood prince. [plus, a red herring - nearly-headless nick destroys the vanishing cabinet at hogwarts in order to rescue harry from filch, this is backed up in order of the phoenix, and leads the reader to presume when they reach half-blood prince that the two cannot be connected.]
a clue to the book's position in its sequence - the introduction of polyjuice potion primes the reader to realise - when snape mentions in goblet of fire that someone has stolen the ingredients to make the potion from him - that someone at hogwarts is an imposter.
a clue to the seven-book arc - dumbledore essentially gives away that harry is a horcrux at the end of the book, when he and harry discuss why he can speak to snakes.
but, a quirk of jkr's writing which i do think is underappreciated is that each of the books also pack clues to these four strands into their general language.
when it comes to the first strand - clues to the solution of a book's individual plot - the language use and symbolism of each book alludes right from the start to the climax of the book's mystery.
to stick with chamber of secrets, the text is full of references to things like books, writing, eyes, mirrors, cameras, ghosts, blood, bones, masks and other ways of concealing one's true identity, water, and things - especially rooms or compartments - which are hidden.
philosopher's stone is full of references to keys. prisoner of azkaban is full of references to hands and fingers. goblet of fire is full of references to blood. order of the phoenix is full of references to screens, thresholds, and veils.
and half-blood prince is full of references to things like water, caves, and drowning - as well as to hands, corpses, necklaces, luck, chance, cups, drinking, bottles, poison, vows, trust, falling, and the colour green.
izzy806
stormborns
blakekathryn
discoholicmusic
ellievsbear
