- This topic has 470 replies, 62 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
4) Why did Harry have to be the one to locate and destroy the horcruxes? I’m sure others (e.g. Kingsley, Moody et al) could have done a much better job.
5) The whole fourth book makes no sense. Why did (fake) Moody have to devise the entire elaborate plan of entering Harry into the tournament, and helping him every step of the way, and volunteering to carry the cup etc.? He could have skipped all of that and just turned any random thing into a portkey at any random time and he would have achieved the same result of getting Harry to the graveyard, with a lot less suspicion created along the way.
PAA – Harry beats Voldemort because he has the allegiance of the Elder Wand because he disarmed Malfoy who had disarmed Dumbledore. However, Harry didn’t win the Elder Wand from Malfoy; it was just Malfoy’s regular wand. So why would Harry have the allegiance of the Elder Wand?
It seems that the way to win the allegiance of the Elder Wand is by beating the owner in a duel, regardless of which weapon used.
The question is really why Harry needed the Elder Wand – if Harry died to save Hogwarts as he did, and because of that the power of love was used to save everyone (although they were older than 17, ??”?) so that Voldemorts spells couldn’t affect them, and if Harry’s blood was still alive in Voldemorts veins, and therefore couldn’t be killed, why did he need the Elder Wand?
I haven’t read Harry potter ( gasp) but am flabbergasted at how presumably grown men ( and women) can be so into this!!!
Well, READ Harry Potter and you won’t be so flabbergasted!
3) Hermione says that she has never done a memory charm before, yet she had already modified her parents memories. Maybe you can be mechalek between wiping memories and changing memories.
Good question. We decided that it could be she confunded her parents rather than actually using a Memory Charm, but it isn’t a very good answer.
“And yekke2, old question. Pashtus PAA is right, although it’s not so ????, especially as all the Elves are doing is picking them up. So Dobby in his time at the Malfoys could have just picked up some clothes. And can all House-Elves not work with clothes? ???? its ???? on ??? ?????.”
In Dobby’s case, Lucius literally gave him a sock. House-elves are freed when the masters physically present them with clothing, not when they have to work with clothing as part of their job– so laundry wouldn’t count.
However, Hermione does not physically give her hats to the house-elves in Gryffindor Tower. The hats nevertheless have the power to free the elves because she planted them with the kavannah that they are gifts. (So if she just carelessly left her own hat lying around, a house-elf could pick it up and return it to its place without being freed.)
Hmmm. Are there two separate ways of freeing? It seems very strange to say that either by mistakenly giving or by intentionally leaving clothes one can free an elf. Surely either a maisah nesinah or a kavono leshachrer should be good, but not both!
Question 4 and 5 are both plot twists, not inconsistencies in the series.
Dumbledore wanted as little people as possible to know about it, so as not to alert anybody to the fact that he was doing this. Perhaps as a tactician he was unwise to select Harry, but Dumbledore being the Dumbledore he was, Harry was his most obvious choice. Harry’s deepest desire and personal interest was to destroy Voldemort, and Dumbledore would have known that and respected that, and would have wanted to give him the chance. Dumbledore probably felt that he owed it to Harry to finally explain everything to him, and give him the ultimate chance to sort it out himself.
Harry was the one who would have given up his entire life to destroy Voldemort, and ultimately would be the one who had to give up his life to destroy himself, the Horcrux. It definitely would have saved a lot of mess to arrange him giving himself up rather than trying to trap Harry into falling to Voldemort. Harry coming to the decision himself, after having a full understanding on what Horcruxes were and Voldemorts psych, was the wisest choice.
Finally, there is the Prophecy. The prophecy dictated that it would be Harry who would finish off Voldemort, if anybody would ever. Dumbledore had to try arrange that to the best of his ability.
Question 6) We now understand that Harry’s ability to see Voldemort in his dreams comes from the fact that a part of his soul belonged to Voldemort, and when Harry’s emotions were weak Voldemort “took over”, and therefore he saw things from Voldemort’s point of view. Why then did he see the dream in the opening chapter of #4 from behind, so that he couldn’t see the figure in the chair (Voldemort)? Why did he see another dream from the point of view of an airborne eagle? Surely it should have been from Voldemorts point of view?
Question 7) When the reverse spell effect kicked in, and the victims of Voldemorts curses came out, surely Harry’s mother should have come first, seeing as she was killed second?
Question 8) Why could Harry only see the Thestrals after seeing Cedric, he had already watched his parents die as a child? And on the homeward journey after seeing Cedric die he couldn’t see them either, they only arrived at the beginning of #5?
Question 9) Food cannot be conjured (One of Five Exceptions to Gamps Elemental Law of Transfiguration). Why then in Book 4 can Mrs. Weasley slammed a large copper saucepan down on the kitchen table and began to wave
her wand around inside it. A creamy sauce poured from the wand tip as she stirred.?
How does Ollivander manage to produce wine from Harry’s wand?
How does Dumbledore conjure gin (Pensieve Book 6) and mead (Dursleys home book 6)?
How does Fudge conjure whiskey (10 Downing Street, Book 6)?
How does Umbridge conjure different drinks when trying to interrogate Harry? (DADA Office, Book 5)
(there were other examples, but I can’t think of them offhand)
How does the Aguamenti charm work?
It could be that charms are different, and Aguamenti and Avis are charms, not transfiguration. Dumbledore and Fudge may have magically transported the alcohol somehow, not conjured it from scratch (Note “Madam Rosmerta’s finest”). Doesn’t answer everything, though.
Question 10) Why by the Quidditch World Cup do they have to queue up for water, it the Aguamenti charm could work just fine? (And it wasn’t just for Muggle freaks like Mr Weasley!!)
Question 11) If Parselmouth is a skill born with, it makes no sense that Ron could imitate it. The very fact that it is imitateeable means that anybody could learn the language.
Question 12) What happens when a secret keeper dies? Seems to be a contradiction whether the secret dies with him (Book 3) or whether all those to whom the secretkeeper divulged the secret to become keepers in their own rights?
Question 13) Can prefects dock points? Incosistency. In Book 5, Malfoy is informed that prefects cannot dock points, however in book 2 Percy docks points from Ron for being in Myrtls lavatory. (Although “cannot dock points from other prefects“, it is clear from that chapter that it was a chiddush that Malfoy could dock points at all. V’dok.
“Why did Harry have to be the one to locate and destroy the horcruxes? I’m sure others (e.g. Kingsley, Moody et al) could have done a much better job.”
Imagine if Harry knew nothing about the Horcruxes, and Moody, kingsley etc. destroyed them all. Then, after Snape died, Harry learned that he would have to die, because there was a piece of Voldemort’s soul in him, one of the Horcruxes. He would have no idea that the others had all been destroyed – therefore, why SHOULD he give up his life, when it might be for nothing? For all he’d know, there could be five Horcruxes out there still. Once he dies, Voldemort will take over, and there’s no knowing that kingsley etc. would survive….. Harry gave up his life, since he had just dedicated the last year to destroying Horcruxes. When he knew the job was nearly finished, and that he was dying al kiddush Hashem, that’s when he had the courage to face Voldemort and be killed.
“Why did (fake) Moody have to devise the entire elaborate plan of entering Harry into the tournament, and helping him every step of the way, and volunteering to carry the cup etc.? He could have skipped all of that and just turned any random thing into a portkey at any random time and he would have achieved the same result of getting Harry to the graveyard, with a lot less suspicion created along the way.”
He couldn’t just make anything a Portkey. He wanted ONLY HARRY in the graveyard. If he turned any random thing into a portkey, how could he know that no other student would touch it? Even in his office – there have been numerous times where students sneaked into teachers’ offices and touched/taken things they werent supposed to. So it had to be in the maze.
“Well, READ Harry Potter and you won’t be so flabbergasted!”
SO TRUE!
“Why then in Book 4 can Mrs. Weasley slammed a large copper saucepan down on the kitchen table and began to wave
her wand around inside it. A creamy sauce poured from the wand tip as she stirred.?”
You cant create food. You can summon it if you know where it is . Perhaps she was summoning all the ingredients from the fridge.
Same for the others.
*cracks necks*
OK, let’s get started…
Question 1:
One must defeat the previous owner to gain mastership of the Elder wand. As it says in the Tale of the Three Brothers…
‘The thief took the wand and, for good measure, slit the oldest brother’s throat.’ (‘??? ?’, ?? ???)
Assuming this story as the final authority on matters relating to the Hallows, we see that with regard to the Elder Wand death is not a prerequisite for ?????. So, as others have answered, simply defeating Draco in battle was enough to gain ownership over not just one, but all wands under Draco’s ????, no matter where they may be.
Question 2:
???? ?????
Question 3:
You said it yourself, it might be a different process to wipe all of a persons memories, as opposed to altering them.
This has a basis in modern psychology, that the best method of dealing with bad memories is to alter the perception of them, rather than erasing them completely, which is virtually impossible.
And so on…
Question 4:
Why did Harry have to be the one to locate and destroy the horcruxes? I’m sure others (e.g. Kingsley, Moody et al) could have done a much better job.
Harry upon discovering the final plan…
How neat, how elegant, not to waste any more lives, but to give the dangerous task to the boy who had already been marked for slaughter, and whose death would not be a calamity, but another blow against Voldermort. (‘??? ?’, ?? ????)
This justification aside, there are numerous reasons why Harry had to be the one who carried out the work.
Firstly, the culmination of the plan, as many do not realise, was that Harry had to sacrifice himself willingly. This had the dual purpose of killing the Horcrux inside him, and extending the protection of Love over all Voldermort’s enemies.
This is evident in the Battle of Hogwarts, where after Harry’s sacrifice (despite it not actually being ?????), all spells Voldermort casts, including the numerous silencing spells, ????? the Body-Bind curse on Neville, are easily broken. This being Dumbledore’s fail-safe, that Voldermorts power is broken whether Harry survives or not.
With this in mind, this is why Harry must be the one to confront Voldermort, the proverbial ‘sacrificial lamb’. Moody or Kingsley would not be able to carry out this final act, as they did not host Horcruxes.
And secondly, it has to be noted that the only reason Dumbledore permitted Harry to include Ron and Hermione in the plan was that they had proven themselves trustworthy (‘?’ ??? ?). The plan had to be confined to a small group, because were it to be revealed, Voldermort could easily foil the plans. This explains why Harry (who we already have proven must be an integral part of the plan), could not enlist the entire Order to help destroy Horcruxes, as it would mean that only one person had to be broken for the plan to fail.
And perhaps thirdly, it could be that Dumbledore was playing on Voldermort’s arrogance, entrusting the most important task to three teenagers, and allowing him to focus his efforts on tracking down the Order, and not see Harry as a real threat until it’s too late.
These reasons are not mutually exclusive, and to sum up, the key seems to be that only a carefully nurtured, guided (by Snape too) and determined Harry, confident that the alone is the answer, can bring about the desired conclusion, as explained above, of a final sacrifice bringing about the true downfall of Voldermort.
Question 4 and 5 are both plot twists, not inconsistencies in the series.
Disappointing, yekke2. Simply writing these questions off as an inconsistency is not the same as addressing them. A ???? in basic ???? is as pertinent as any stirah. Despite this, as you can see, I broadly agree as far as Q4 is concerned. Although…
Finally, there is the Prophecy. The prophecy dictated that it would be Harry who would finish off Voldemort, if anybody would ever. Dumbledore had to try arrange that to the best of his ability.
You of all people should know that a prophecy is open to interpretation. Perhaps Voldermort marked Harry out as his equal, which led to a simple ???? that one must end up killing the other, but that does not mean Harry, or indeed Dumbledore, had to take the prophecy in any particular way. So no, not ‘dictated’.
Hmmm. Are there two separate ways of freeing? It seems very strange to say that either by mistakenly giving or by intentionally leaving clothes one can free an elf. Surely either a maisah nesinah or a kavono leshachrer should be good, but not both!
Its not a choice between a ‘maisah nesinah or a kavono leshachrer’. In both cases there is a ????, with the ??? coming to the hands of the elf. However, the House-Elf must, in Dobby’s words, ‘receive clothes’. The key lies in the word ‘receive’. The ???, in this case the elf, must be ???? clothes from his master. This ???? could either be through a ????? ??? ????, which does not require ????, or a ????? ?? ??? ????, which in order to be a ???? must be ?????. As in both cases the requirements of the elf ‘receiving’ clothes has been met, so there is no problem with the two separate forms. The ??? is ???? on ????? ?????, not ??? ?????.
Question 5:
The whole fourth book makes no sense. Why did (fake) Moody have to devise the entire elaborate plan of entering Harry into the tournament, and helping him every step of the way, and volunteering to carry the cup etc.? He could have skipped all of that and just turned any random thing into a portkey at any random time and he would have achieved the same result of getting Harry to the graveyard, with a lot less suspicion created along the way.
I have had this question for a while, and pashtus it’s simply a plot device. But possibly…
Perhaps Moody/Crouch would have found it too difficult to get Harry alone or get him to touch the Portkey in any other circumstance, what with Dumbledore watching over him. Smuggling a portkey where it is the least expected danger could have been easier. But thats a bit ????, so…
The most plausible explanation is that Moody/Crouch wished to continue at Hogwarts as Voldermort’s spy. If Harry disappeared under Moody’s watch, he would be quickly found out. But for Harry to mysteriously go missing in the maze (remember, the Cup would have returned by itself), the blame would not fall on Moody, especially with Krum under the Imperius Curse and ready to take the blame (admittedly, this is all conjecture, but it does appear to make sense).
And it’s worth remembering, Crouch was a certified madman.
Question 6:
We now understand that Harry’s ability to see Voldemort in his dreams comes from the fact that a part of his soul belonged to Voldemort, and when Harry’s emotions were weak Voldemort “took over”, and therefore he saw things from Voldemort’s point of view. Why then did he see the dream in the opening chapter of #4 from behind, so that he couldn’t see the figure in the chair (Voldemort)? Why did he see another dream from the point of view of an airborne eagle? Surely it should have been from Voldemorts point of view?
My opinions on this matter have been quite clear. It can be argued that up until ‘??? ? Voldermort was mainly a spirit, and as such was not tied down to a body as from then onwards. Therefore, since it is not apparent that Voldermort himself was anything more then a mere shadow, as he himself said…
I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost. . . but still, I was alive. What I was, even I do not know… I, who have gone further than anybody along the path that leads to immortality. You know my goal – to conquer death. And now, I was tested, and it appeared that one or more of my experiments had worked … for I had not been killed, though the curse should have done it. Nevertheless, I was as powerless as the weakest creature alive, and without the means to help myself… for I had no body, and every spell that might have helped me required the use of a wand… (‘??? ?)
At those points in the series, it is highly probable that Voldermort was not much more than a consciousness, inhabiting the area around him, and indeed, nearby animals such as that eagle. And whilst he may have had some semblance of a body, it is unclear his mind was confined to it.
This would explain why the ‘outside view’ visions are only up until his resurrection.
Wow! I was not expecting the outpouring of responses here. That being the case, I am not going to address each person/idea individually; I will simply discuss each question in light of the answers given:
1) The consensus here seems to be that merely defeating Malfoy is enough to gain the allegiance of the elder wand. This does not resonate with me for two reasons: Disarming him of a different wand is hardly “defeating” him, and this also must assume that no one had disarmed Malfoy in the many-months-long interim.
2) The only suggestion given was ruba k’kulah which I don’t get.
3) We seem to agree that there might be some chiluk.
4) There were a bunch of suggestions but I don’t think any of them really addressed the question. I was not suggesting that Harry shouldn’t have been involved; he should have been able to get help (from a minimal amount of people).
5) I don’t think anyone adequately addressed this one.
Perhaps tomorrow I will discuss the questions that others have posed and maybe add a couple more myself.
“4) There were a bunch of suggestions but I don’t think any of them really addressed the question. I was not suggesting that Harry shouldn’t have been involved; he should have been able to get help (from a minimal amount of people).”
I believe sirvoddmort answered this satisfactorily.
“The plan had to be confined to a small group, because were it to be revealed, Voldermort could easily foil the plans. This explains why Harry (who we already have proven must be an integral part of the plan), could not enlist the entire Order to help destroy Horcruxes, as it would mean that only one person had to be broken for the plan to fail.”
He couldn’t just make anything a Portkey. He wanted ONLY HARRY in the graveyard. If he turned any random thing into a portkey, how could he know that no other student would touch it? Even in his office – there have been numerous times where students sneaked into teachers’ offices and touched/taken things they weren’t supposed to. So it had to be in the maze.
It would be a lot easier to slip him a portkey while Harry was in his office, and a lot more guaranteed than Harry winning the cup, which took a tremendous amount of effort, and wasn’t guaranteed.
Question 4 and 5 are both plot twists, not inconsistencies in the series.
Disappointing, yekke2. Simply writing these questions off as an inconsistency is not the same as addressing them. A ???? in basic ???? is as pertinent as any stirah. Despite this, as you can see, I broadly agree as far as Q4 is concerned. Although…
I wasn’t writing off the questions. I answered one. I don’t have an answer for the second.
Finally, there is the Prophecy. The prophecy dictated that it would be Harry who would finish off Voldemort, if anybody would ever. Dumbledore had to try arrange that to the best of his ability.
You of all people should know that a prophecy is open to interpretation. Perhaps Voldermort marked Harry out as his equal, which led to a simple ???? that one must end up killing the other, but that does not mean Harry, or indeed Dumbledore, had to take the prophecy in any particular way. So no, not ‘dictated’.
Of course. That is the entire point of my answer. Dumbledore, knowing that the Prophecy required Harry to finish Voldemort off, tried to facilitate that the Prophecy would cooperate with his plans by arranging them to suit him. Dumbledore chose this as the easiest interpretation open to manipulation.
Its not a choice between a ‘maisah nesinah or a kavono leshachrer’. In both cases there is a ????, with the ??? coming to the hands of the elf. However, the House-Elf must, in Dobby’s words, ‘receive clothes’. The key lies in the word ‘receive’. The ???, in this case the elf, must be ???? clothes from his master. This ???? could either be through a ????? ??? ????, which does not require ????, or a ????? ?? ??? ????, which in order to be a ???? must be ?????. As in both cases the requirements of the elf ‘receiving’ clothes has been met, so there is no problem with the two separate forms. The ??? is ???? on ????? ?????, not ??? ?????.
Not much better. I like your play on the ‘recieve’, but it’s not great. Its not at ?????. If it is true that you need ????? to make it “recieve”, then that should be the makeit or break it. You are being ?????? ???? ?????.
I have had this question for a while, and pashtus it’s simply a plot device.
“Impaled on your own sword, Gilderoy?”
The most plausible explanation is that Moody/Crouch wished to continue at Hogwarts as Voldermort’s spy. If Harry disappeared under Moody’s watch, he would be quickly found out. But for Harry to mysteriously go missing in the maze (remember, the Cup would have returned by itself), the blame would not fall on Moody, especially with Krum under the Imperius Curse and ready to take the blame (admittedly, this is all conjecture, but it does appear to make sense).
To add, Voldemort always wanted a spy around Dumbledore. “One of our number has left us forever” makes it sound that he suspected Snape of treachery and of becoming a member of the Order. He would have wanted to replace Snape. However, he could have Imperiused anybody else to present Harry with a Portkey, or even sent it to him for Christmas!
And it’s worth remembering, Crouch was a certified madman.
But whatever Voldemort’s problems were, he wasn’t the certified madman Crouch was. He wouldn’t have let through such a plan.
At those points in the series, it is highly probable that Voldermort was not much more than a consciousness, inhabiting the area around him, and indeed, nearby animals such as that eagle. And whilst he may have had some semblance of a body, it is unclear his mind was confined to it.
This would explain why the ‘outside view’ visions are only up until his resurrection.
I anticipated your response, but I don’t think it sufficiently answers the eagle scenario.
This wasn’t by chance, that the closest animal happened to be the eagle, which was ‘caught’ in Voldemort’s trap. Harry was looking from the point of view of the rider, as is stated clearly when the eagle rider steps off.
“But how come the Ministry didn’t realize that Voldemort had done all that to Morfin?” Harry asked angrily. “He was underage at the time, wasn’t he? I thought they could detect underage magic!”
“Dobby,” growled Harry; this injustice still rankled. “So if you’re underage and you do magic inside an adult witch or wizard’s house, the Ministry won’t know?”
“They will certainly be unable to tell who performed the magic,” said Dumbledore, smiling slightly at the look of great indignation on Harrys face. “They rely on witch and wizard parents to enforce their offspring’s obedience while within their walls.”
“Well, that’s rubbish,” snapped Harry.
Back to work…
1) The consensus here seems to be that merely defeating Malfoy is enough to gain the allegiance of the elder wand. This does not resonate with me for two reasons: Disarming him of a different wand is hardly “defeating” him, and this also must assume that no one had disarmed Malfoy in the many-months-long interim.
It’s possible that it’s not enough to ‘defeat’ Malfoy. What was suggested above was that by conquering his wand, and changing its allegiance, he takes possession over any wand under Malfoy’s ????. Remember, she makes up the rules.
“It would be a lot easier to slip him a portkey while Harry was in his office”
Right. Because that wouldnt be suspicious at ALL. I think that despite what people say, that putting Harry’s name in the goblet generated a lot of suspicion – while that may be true, people suspected Harry, or karkaroff, or even dumbledore, but did anyone suspect moody-crouch?? whereas had Harry just disappeared stam, the first thing Dumbledore would have done would have been to question the teachers, which was the last thing crouch would have wanted, since Dumbledore was very good at detecting lies.
“he could have Imperiused anybody else to present Harry with a Portkey”
well then wouldnt that person be transported before he got the chance to hand over the portkey?
“Remember, she makes up the rules.”
Fair point.
cozimjewish:
All Moody had to do was make a portkey while Harry was in his office and have him touch it. Alternatively, he could brought him outside the grounds and apparated with him. Harry had no reason to suspect him and surely would have done what Moody would tell him to do. Furthermore, I highly doubt that if a student would disappear, Dumbledore’s first reaction would be to suspect a teacher of abducting the student, much less Moody whom he specifically brought in to increase security and trusts implicitly. In a magical school there are so many more basic things that can happen to a student, that questioning Moody would be far down the list. And anyway, the way Moody did do it is practically begging for Dumbledore to suspect him. Moody volunteered to carry out the cup, Harry touched the cup, and then the cup comes back without Harry. It would be almost blatantly obvious that Moody had made it a portkey.
And it’s worth remembering, Crouch was a certified madman.
But whatever Voldemort’s problems were, he wasn’t the certified madman Crouch was. He wouldn’t have let through such a plan.
To be fair, this was never my main point. However, Crouch did attempt to kill Harry in his office after the resurrection, against Voldermort’s express wishes (we can assume they were in place at the time). So Crouch could have been a tad more flamboyant than was needed.
Not much better. I like your play on the ‘recieve’, but it’s not great. Its not at ?????. If it is true that you need ????? to make it “recieve”, then that should be the makeit or break it. You are being ?????? ???? ?????.
The ????? is not the issue. The issue is whether the master has presented the elf with clothes. If he handed it to him, then he has presented it. When it comes to the elf picking it up without there being a direct ?????, how is it a ‘presentation’ (the ???? chiefly used in the book is ‘present’), except if the master intended for him to get it. In both cases, the master has ‘presented’. The requirement has been fulfilled. Any further conjecture is simply being pedantic.
*cracks knuckles*
Question 7:
??”?
The following questions, as asked above, are well known and documented, and to attempt to answer them one must drift into the realms of unsubstantiated inventions and wild conjecture. But here goes…
Question 8:
Why could Harry only see the Thestrals after seeing Cedric, he had already watched his parents die as a child? And on the homeward journey after seeing Cedric die he couldn’t see them either, they only arrived at the beginning of #5?
You could say that Harry never really saw his parents die, what with James being in the hallway and Lily having her back to him. But this is very flimsy, and ignores the question as regards the end of ‘??? ?.
Perhaps one must understand, or maybe come to terms, with the death they have witnessed to see the Thestrals. This would make more sense overall, seeing as how as a baby Harry thought they were simply pretty lights, and with him being in a seeming state of shock after Cedric’s death. This would be further helped by the fact that Harry only seemed to come to terms with Cedric’s death following his talk with Dumbledore at the beginning of ‘??? ?.
This explanation would change the concept of Thestrals. The seeing of the Thestrals would be a psychological, and not purely physical, process, as the imprint death leaves would be enabling one to see them, not simply the act of seeing a human dying.
[Further points to ponder – Is Magic a psychological, physical or spiritual power. Logic would dictate a blend of all three, or perhaps some sort of bonding power between those elements (bear in mind the need for one to visualise, understand a spell and preform the correct physical movements to elicit a physical or other reaction). Understanding this is the key to understanding many of these questions, particularly those involving magical theory and perception]
Question 9:
Food cannot be conjured (One of Five Exceptions to Gamps Elemental Law of Transfiguration). Why then in Book 4 can Mrs. Weasley slammed a large copper saucepan down on the kitchen table and began to wave her wand around inside it. A creamy sauce poured from the wand tip as she stirred?
One possible answer is that the rules that apply to solid foods do not apply to liquids (assuming the above ‘creamy sauce’ is more cream than anything else, and thereby a drink, being a by-product of milk).
It is also shayach that Mrs Weasley is summoning, or perhaps altering, the food, and not being mechadesh new food. Remember, earlier on potatoes were peeled. the fact that it comes from the wand tip doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been summoned.
Question 10:
Why by the Quidditch World Cup do they have to queue up for water, it the Aguamenti charm could work just fine? (And it wasn’t just for Muggle freaks like Mr Weasley!!)
Really? They were trying to act like muggles, and spells were forbidden on the campsite.
This would make more sense overall, seeing as how as a baby Harry thought they were simply pretty lights, and with him being in a seeming state of shock after Cedric’s death.
Seeming state of shock???? Not very good.
One possible answer is that the rules that apply to solid foods do not apply to liquids (assuming the above ‘creamy sauce’ is more cream than anything else, and thereby a drink, being a by-product of milk).
Been there done that. But I don’t like it; cream is harder than alcoholic beverages. Secondly, there shouldn’t be any rational explanation to differentiate between liquids to solids; all FOODS are the exception.
Really? They were trying to act like muggles, and spells were forbidden on the campsite.
But if you read the chapter, you will see that many wizards were doing their best to simply get around the rules. In that queue were wizards who were stubbornly not conforming with the rules.
[Further points to ponder – Is Magic a psychological, physical or spiritual power. Logic would dictate a blend of all three, or perhaps some sort of bonding power between those elements (bear in mind the need for one to visualise, understand a spell and preform the correct physical movements to elicit a physical or other reaction). Understanding this is the key to understanding many of these questions, particularly those involving magical theory and perception]
I always saw the spells and magic in general similar to kinyanim. A maaseh kinyan (spell) can lead to certain results, but in order to give the koichos to the kinyan, you need kavanna from the poiel of the kinyan. (Not working with the shittas that the kavanna is the main power in the kinyan, which is how I understand wandless magic like Dumbledore and Quirrell.)
and to attempt to answer them one must drift into the realms of unsubstantiated inventions and wild conjecture…
From this point forth, we shall be leaving the firm foundation of fact and journeying together through the murky marshes of memory into thickets of wildest guesswork. — Albus Dumbledore.
[Further points to ponder – Is Magic a psychological, physical or spiritual power. Logic would dictate a blend of all three, or perhaps some sort of bonding power between those elements (bear in mind the need for one to visualise, understand a spell and preform the correct physical movements to elicit a physical or other reaction). Understanding this is the key to understanding many of these questions, particularly those involving magical theory and perception]
For a fascinating read and a great enjoyable book, which is revolving around the very issue you bring up here, read Harry Potter and the Method of Rationality, by Eliezer Yudkowsky (Jewish? No hint of it). Available free online [no links allowed, just google it!]
I believe I have recommended this to you in the past, in person.
Regarding Hermione freeing the elves, it seems that there were really two seperate issues raised: 1) How does Hermione have the authority to free them? 2) Via what mechanism would they have been freed? To answer the first question, I had said earlier that everyone in Hogwarts has a chelek in the elves. The obvious problem with this answer is that then Hermione would only be able to free her chelek which would seem to be pointless. But upon further contemplation, it would seem that when Hermione frees her chelek, the elf becomes a ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? in which case we would ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?????. So Hermione would basically be forcing everyone else to give up their parts as well.
Regarding the second issue, this would seem to be similar to ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? which is ?? ??? ???? because the Torah says ????. So by an elf an actual nesinah should not be necessary as long as the elf acquires the clothes and the owner had intent. Aaaiii, Lucius Malfoy did not have intent to free Dobby. So efshar we could say that you don’t need intent to free, you just need intent to give.
But if you read the chapter, you will see that many wizards were doing their best to simply get around the rules. In that queue were wizards who were stubbornly not conforming with the rules.
That doesn’t mean everybody wasn’t conforming, and the Weasleys, for one, where listening to Ministry regulations (case in point, Arthur’s fiasco with the matches).
Regarding the second issue, this would seem to be similar to ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? which is ?? ??? ???? because the Torah says ????. So by an elf an actual nesinah should not be necessary as long as the elf acquires the clothes and the owner had intent. Aaaiii, Lucius Malfoy did not have intent to free Dobby. So efshar we could say that you don’t need intent to free, you just need intent to give.
Intent is not the key here. It is true that were this a matter of ????? ??? it would be invalid, but, as you have previously acknowledged, her book, her rules. And her rules state that there has to be a presentation, kabbolah, call it what you will, of an article of clothing. Therefore, handing a ??? to an elf will free it, as that is the requirement. There need be no intent.
But when there is no direct handing over of said ???, then the modus operandi of presenting the clothes is by wishing them to have it at the time they pick it up, this being another form of the master ‘presenting’. For without the master’s intent in that ????, there is no ‘presentation’ in any form.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.