Hermione's powers and parents
davide...@doramail.com
If Hermione's parents are muggles without power how can she have
powers herself?
Aren't powers heired from one's parents. How can a child of two
muggles be a witch?
How can she found out about her powers and how Hogwarts can know about
her, contact her and admit her to the school?
Thanks
Davide
riya...@gmail.com
> There's something I don't understand
> If Hermione's parents are muggles without power how can she have
> powers herself?
> Aren't powers heired from one's parents. How can a child of two
> muggles be a witch?
You are asking like Umbridge.
If magical parents can produce SQUIBs, why can't muggle parents give
birth to wizard or witch?
Power does not come by gene. It's naturally comes to anybody.
> How can she found out about her powers and how Hogwarts can know about
> her, contact her and admit her to the school?
I don't think you have read the books well.
She and muggle born wizards/witches usually wonder about their
powers.
MoM keeps track of magic wherever happens in their corresponding
country. Thus Hogwarts knows.
Riya
santosh
> There's something I don't understand
> If Hermione's parents are muggles without power how can she have
> powers herself?
There was magical blood somewhere in her ancestry.
> Aren't powers heired from one's parents. How can a child of two
> muggles be a witch?
Are all your genes derived only from your parents? And where do they get
their genes? As I said, there must have been some ancestors who were
magical. It happened to express once in Hermione for whatever reason.
Rowling doesn't explain these things in detail.
> How can she found out about her powers
They start manifesting during childhood.
> and how Hogwarts can know about
> her, contact her and admit her to the school?
Hogwarts has, apparently, a special "quill" that records the birth of
every magical child in England. They would've contacted her and her
parents via the usual letter and perhaps through a staff member as
well, since they would've have been new to the wizarding world.
>
> Thanks
> Davide
Toon
wrote:
>There's something I don't understand
>If Hermione's parents are muggles without power how can she have
>powers herself?
>Aren't powers heired from one's parents. How can a child of two
>muggles be a witch?
Recessive genes can spend generations inactive before activating.
>How can she found out about her powers
She got a letter from Hogwarts, realized those weird funky things were
magic, and got a free in home demonstration by McGonnagle or such as
proof of magic.
>and how Hogwarts can know about
>her,
Magical detection.
>contact her
Owl Mail
> and admit her to the school?
Godric was very liberal with admittance policies. DD even more so:
Half giants, werewolves, Tommy Boy.
Toon
It always knows. Hogwarts Loops. With marshmallow lighting bolts,
wands, and brooms.
Deevo
news:821fb81c-e06a-486e...@l16g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> There's something I don't understand
> If Hermione's parents are muggles without power how can she have
> powers herself?
Simple, it's magic.
> Aren't powers heired from one's parents. How can a child of two
> muggles be a witch?
Same reason as a child of a witch and a wizard can be a squib I guess.
> How can she found out about her powers and how Hogwarts can know about
> her, contact her and admit her to the school?
Magic.
My own theory is that, in Jo's world, magical ability isn't dependant on
liniage but rather is a more random gift. Having it present in your
ancestors can increase your chances but your ability isn't solely dependent
on that. If it were then Voldemort and his followers would have been on the
right track.
--
Deevo
Geraldton Western Australia
http://members.westnet.com.au/mckenzie/index.htm
John VanSickle
> There's something I don't understand
> If Hermione's parents are muggles without power how can she have
> powers herself?
> Aren't powers heired from one's parents. How can a child of two
> muggles be a witch?
Although there have been many explanations advanced for this, JKR has
said that Muggleborn witches and wizards actually have wizards in their
family tree, and won the chromosome lottery that their ancestors had lost.
As with many other issues, I am not sure that JKR has thought these
things through as thoroughly as necessary, because this brings up the
question of whether the first humans were wizarding folk or Muggles, and
if they were either, whence came the other?
> How can she found out about her powers and how Hogwarts can know about
> her, contact her and admit her to the school?
At Hogwarts there is a magical quill which writes down the names of
every witch and wizard born in the British Isles, as they are born.
Regards,
John
Richard Eney
santosh <santo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>davide...@doramail.com wrote:
>
>> There's something I don't understand
>> If Hermione's parents are muggles without power how can she have
>> powers herself?
>
>There was magical blood somewhere in her ancestry.
>
>> Aren't powers heired from one's parents. How can a child of two
>> muggles be a witch?
>
>Are all your genes derived only from your parents? And where do they get
>their genes? As I said, there must have been some ancestors who were
>magical. It happened to express once in Hermione for whatever reason.
>Rowling doesn't explain these things in detail.
JKR said that all magical people had someone magical in their ancestry,
but she seems to have forgotten that somebody had to be the first
magical person. Either that or all beings were magical to begin with
and then the squibs took over and were dominant, which doesn't work
either since JKR also says magic is dominant.
I prefer the explanation in book 1, it just happens that sometimes
someone is born with magic. Once it's there, it usually passes to
the next generation, but not always.
And who is to say that magic might not express itself in good dentistry?
>> How can she found out about her powers
>
>They start manifesting during childhood.
>
>> and how Hogwarts can know about
>> her, contact her and admit her to the school?
>
>Hogwarts has, apparently, a special "quill" that records the birth of
>every magical child in England. They would've contacted her and her
>parents via the usual letter and perhaps through a staff member as
>well, since they would've have been new to the wizarding world.
You know, that series of questions sounds like homework,
or at least an online quiz:
How did Hermione get her powers, Did she inherit them,
How did she find out she had them, How did Hogwarts know about her...
=Tamar
Sirius Kase
> In article <foupqd$qg...@registered.motzarella.org>,
>
>
>
> santosh <santosh....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >davideb_mu...@doramail.com wrote:
>
> >> There's something I don't understand
> >> If Hermione's parents are muggles without power how can she have
> >> powers herself?
>
> >There was magical blood somewhere in her ancestry.
>
> >> Aren't powers heired from one's parents. How can a child of two
> >> muggles be a witch?
>
> >Are all your genes derived only from your parents? And where do they get
> >their genes? As I said, there must have been some ancestors who were
> >magical. It happened to express once in Hermione for whatever reason.
> >Rowling doesn't explain these things in detail.
>
> JKR said that all magical people had someone magical in their ancestry,
> but she seems to have forgotten that somebody had to be the first
> magical person. Either that or all beings were magical to begin with
> and then the squibs took over and were dominant, which doesn't work
> either since JKR also says magic is dominant.
So who's the mutant - the wizard or the muggle?
>
> I prefer the explanation in book 1, it just happens that sometimes
> someone is born with magic. Once it's there, it usually passes to
> the next generation, but not always.
Which sounds more like genetics than environment. I believe in a very
old thread, we concluded that magic is apparently a very rare dominate
gene. But, that does't explain squibs.
>
> And who is to say that magic might not express itself in good dentistry?
They just have the knack
R.C. Payne
What determines whether an individual is magical or not is not explained
in the books. It seems clear that most children from a magical family
are magical, and most children from a non-magical family are not
magical, but the mechanism is not discussed. Outside of the books, JKR
has suggested it is in some sense heritable, implying a genetic
component, but I am inclined to take comments she says in interviews
with a generous helping of salt. The simple answer is, it's magic.
Robin
Toon
wrote:
>Are all your genes derived only from your parents? And where do they get
>their genes? As I said, there must have been some ancestors who were
>magical. It happened to express once in Hermione for whatever reason.
>Rowling doesn't explain these things in detail.
Fan theory is over exposure to the X-Ray machine did it.
Toon
wrote:
>JKR said that all magical people had someone magical in their ancestry,
>but she seems to have forgotten that somebody had to be the first
>magical person. Either that or all beings were magical to begin with
>and then the squibs took over and were dominant, which doesn't work
>either since JKR also says magic is dominant.
Magic is just a mutation that has persisted. IE, Blue eyes is a
mutation that never went away. Not everybody has it, but you can
inherit it from beyond your folks.
Toon
<Siriu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So who's the mutant - the wizard or the muggle?
Wizards. There's a school for training that was run by a peace
loving, very powerful wizard that believed both kinds were equal.
There even was an army of trained fighters fighting for such ideals
against one of the most powerful wizards ever, who wanted to dominate
regular folks.
The HP-Men.
Steve Morrison
The British Medical Journal had a paper last December on the "origins of
magic" which concluded that although magic seems to have a genetic basis,
it involves more than one gene. Here's the link:
Sirius Kase
Unfortunately for those of us who like neat scientific explanations,
this is probably the correct answer. Magic is not science. It seems
like a cop out to say "it's magic", but Rowling wrote herself a
license to use that explanation whenever she wanted to include stuff
that isn't explanable.
The Translucent Amoebae
What i thought was more interesting...
( Smart children are often born to dumb parents... )
Was that on their first train trip to Hogwarts, Hermione fixed Harry's
glasses...???
Where did she learn that...?
i had kind of assumed that she had a witch or wizard aunt or
uncle...???
Drusilla
Her parents bought her more books than those required by Hogwarts, IICR.
And she read them and studied them all. Also, she had the chance to
practice.
Deevo
news:3af04f32-823c-45c7...@b74g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 6:56 pm, davideb_mu...@doramail.com wrote:
>> There's something I don't understand
>> If Hermione's parents are muggles without power how can she have
>> powers herself?
>> Aren't powers heired from one's parents. How can a child of two
>> muggles be a witch?
>> How can she found out about her powers and how Hogwarts can know about
>> her, contact her and admit her to the school?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Davide
>
> What i thought was more interesting...
> ( Smart children are often born to dumb parents... )
>
> Was that on their first train trip to Hogwarts, Hermione fixed Harry's
> glasses...???
No it wasn't, that was a filmic invention.
> Where did she learn that...?
She didn't, but she did learn a hell of a lot about the wizarding world from
the books she got before starting.
DaveD
"Drusilla" <gammanormi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fp28oc$t1q$1...@aioe.org...
Well she frequently demonstrated she'd done lots of advanced reading and
more ("Hogwarts, A History", anyone?) judging by her quotes, but surely if
she'd practiced, the MoM would have detected it via the trace as she was
under 17, and being muggle-born, it's unlikely there were any adult witches
or wizards around who could have done it - it would have had to have been
Hermione.
DaveD
Thom Madura
WE really don't know the threshold of magic that was required for
detection. We also don't know if doing them when no muggles were around
changes the situation.
Obviously - Harry was able to use Lumos to read with - and not cause a
problem - but generally under the sheets of his bed with the door
locked. Hermione specifically said that she tried some spells - but we
don't know which ones (Except repairing Harry's glasses - on the train -
but that was in a magical arena).
Harry got into trouble when he "blew up his aunt". My guess is that the
ministry does allow a minor amount of magic to get by. If they did not
=- every piece of unintentional magic would set off their radar alarms -
and they would get no peace at all.
The Translucent Amoebae
> DaveD wrote:
>
> > "Drusilla" <gammanormidsERASET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It always seemed to me that the prohibition against magick was always,
not just for Harry, but all W&W's, a shallow, hollow threat.
Obviously if you grew up in a magickal household, you're going to be
using magick all the time before you turn 12, or 17.
Deevo
news:47b4d8c3$0$14675$607e...@cv.net...
> DaveD wrote:
<snip>
>> Well she frequently demonstrated she'd done lots of advanced reading and
>> more ("Hogwarts, A History", anyone?) judging by her quotes, but surely
>> if she'd practiced, the MoM would have detected it via the trace as she
>> was under 17, and being muggle-born, it's unlikely there were any adult
>> witches or wizards around who could have done it - it would have had to
>> have been Hermione.
>>
>> DaveD
>
> WE really don't know the threshold of magic that was required for
> detection. We also don't know if doing them when no muggles were around
> changes the situation.
It would be fair to say that before she got her letter she would have been
unaware of doing any magic so it would have been likely that any
indiscretions were, like those of Harry prior to his schooling, treated as
accidental magic.
> Obviously - Harry was able to use Lumos to read with - and not cause a
> problem
Actually that was another invention of the films. When Harry used magic in
the books he did so after the incident with his aunt and was already
thinking he had been expelled.
> but generally under the sheets of his bed with the door locked. Hermione
> specifically said that she tried some spells - but we don't know which
> ones (Except repairing Harry's glasses - on the train - but that was in a
> magical arena).
Another invention of the films too.
> Harry got into trouble when he "blew up his aunt". My guess is that the
> ministry does allow a minor amount of magic to get by. If they did not =-
> every piece of unintentional magic would set off their radar alarms - and
> they would get no peace at all.
That would be reasonable, though we never really got to see a reasonable
ministry in the books.
Thom Madura
Well - they obviously are able to use magic at school. Some wizards are
home schooled too - so they must be able to use magic there when
properly supervised.
My guess would be that it is not just the magic - but whether it is done
when muggles are around to see it.
Toon
wrote:
But do we know it's common in twins? We know of two twins, both
identical (The Weasely and Patils). The fact that there aren't more
twins shown indicates it's probably rare for twins to have magic. Or
twins are rare in the UK.
And if it isn't genetic, then the whole thing's moot. Maybe it's a
sort of virus that infects inwomb babies. Maybe little germ dudes
enter the bloodstream randomly, and bestow power on the hosts.
Toon
<transa...@seanet.com> wrote:
>On Feb 12, 6:56 pm, davideb_mu...@doramail.com wrote:
>> There's something I don't understand
>> If Hermione's parents are muggles without power how can she have
>> powers herself?
>> Aren't powers heired from one's parents. How can a child of two
>> muggles be a witch?
>> How can she found out about her powers and how Hogwarts can know about
>> her, contact her and admit her to the school?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Davide
>
>What i thought was more interesting...
>( Smart children are often born to dumb parents... )
Tell me about it.
>Was that on their first train trip to Hogwarts, Hermione fixed Harry's
>glasses...???
Maybe she would have been an eye doctor if not for magic.
>Where did she learn that...?
Book Of Spells.
Toon
<dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Her parents bought her more books than those required by Hogwarts, IICR.
>> And she read them and studied them all. Also, she had the chance to
>> practice.
>
>
>Well she frequently demonstrated she'd done lots of advanced reading and
>more ("Hogwarts, A History", anyone?)
Nobody reads that. For all we know, she's making those facts up.
> judging by her quotes, but surely if
>she'd practiced, the MoM would have detected it via the trace as she was
>under 17, and being muggle-born, it's unlikely there were any adult witches
>or wizards around who could have done it - it would have had to have been
>Hermione.
she might have had special permission to practice, just to help prove
she's magical. Wizard borns know of magic from watching their family,
and seem to perform it on and off (the Twins with Ron's
Teddy/Unbreakable Vow attempt, Draco and Harry flying on brooms, be
them toy or real, at young ages.) Muggleborns might need to practice
just to get used to it all.
Toon
<transa...@seanet.com> wrote:
>It always seemed to me that the prohibition against magick was always,
>not just for Harry, but all W&W's, a shallow, hollow threat.
Might be more for those near Muggles. If problems arise, it's a lot
of work to modify all witness's memories. If the Weaselys do it in
the Burrow, who'll ever know? They also have two grown wizards to
undo spells. Harry intentionally left Marge in her magically altered
state. and to sue the film to further prove things, letting her float
off into the sunset is a major threat against the Secrcey Act. So,
forbidding kids like that makes sense.
Also, one doesn't like untrained people using dangerous stuff. You
don't just give a 16 yo a new car. You have to teach them first. Test
them. Limit them even when they first get a license.
But it was never so strict as fans make it out to be, Harry can use
Lumius because nobody who doesn't know about magic will see it, and if
they do, he can claim it's a broken flashlight. Most people wouldn't
think twice on a themed flashlight. When I was a kid, we had
character faces to put on flashlights, and let the light shine through
their eyes and mouth,
Toon
<mcke...@NOSPAMmidwest.com.au> wrote:
>Another invention of the films too.
But Jo did create the spell used. So she is definitely fine with it.
>> Harry got into trouble when he "blew up his aunt". My guess is that the
>> ministry does allow a minor amount of magic to get by. If they did not =-
>> every piece of unintentional magic would set off their radar alarms - and
>> they would get no peace at all.
>
>That would be reasonable, though we never really got to see a reasonable
>ministry in the books.
Maybe they'd be more reasonable, if they didn't have alarms going off
all the time.
DJ
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:33:26 -0000, dicc...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
You read my mind. I was thinking along the lines of right-handed
people versus left-handed people. It seems simple enough to me; my
mother, father, and youngest brother are all right-handed, while my
oldest brother is a lefty. *I* happen to be able to write with either
hand. With regard to the magical world, it would appear to be just a
fluke (or lack) of genes, like handedness.
--
DJ
DJ
>
> - Show quoted text -
Also, I seem to recall a conversation between Dumbledore and Tom
Riddle about following the magical rules once one decides to be a part
of their world... I think its safe to say the Ministry would hardly
be able to punish Riddle (or Hermione, for that matter) when they are
fully aware that muggles have no clue that magic even exists,
nevermind a whole set of laws and infrastructure.
Another thing that comes to mind is the campsite for the World Cup.
There were kids all over practicing magic, like the boy who hit the
slug with an engorgement charm, or the two kids riding on their toy
brooms, all the while there's Ministry officals present, yet there's
no mention of the children being charged with a violation of the
Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Wizardry. But they probably
draw the line at 11, when children begin their formal magical
education. Just a thought.
--
DJ
Green-Eyed Chris
Steve Morrison <rim...@toast.net> wrote:
Thanks for the link!
Delightful material. I hope it may find its way to the Nobel Committee.
Perhaps someone is also working on a decent psychological profile of
Snape.
--
Chris
Thom Madura
Is handedness truly hereditary?
I was left handed when I was younger. I broke my arm badly - and was
forced to use my right hand by the nuns. I now exclusively write right
handed - although I bowl from both sides.
Thom Madura
I continue to believe that more is allowed - as long as muggles are not
able to see.
Deevo
news:pqabr3d8tdblpgn60...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:58:52 +0900, "Deevo"
> <mcke...@NOSPAMmidwest.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Another invention of the films too.
>
> But Jo did create the spell used. So she is definitely fine with it.
Ofd course she is, but that doesn't change the fact that the scene was never
in the books.
>>> Harry got into trouble when he "blew up his aunt". My guess is that the
>>> ministry does allow a minor amount of magic to get by. If they did not
>>> =-
>>> every piece of unintentional magic would set off their radar alarms -
>>> and
>>> they would get no peace at all.
>>
>>That would be reasonable, though we never really got to see a reasonable
>>ministry in the books.
>
> Maybe they'd be more reasonable, if they didn't have alarms going off
> all the time.
Somehow I doubt it.
Richard Eney
Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
> Steve Morrison <rim...@toast.net> wrote:
>
>>The British Medical Journal had a paper last December on the "origins of
>>magic" which concluded that although magic seems to have a genetic basis,
>>it involves more than one gene. Here's the link:
>>
>>http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7633/1299
>
>But do we know it's common in twins? We know of two twins, both
>identical (The Weasely and Patils). The fact that there aren't more
>twins shown indicates it's probably rare for twins to have magic. Or
>twins are rare in the UK.
>
>And if it isn't genetic, then the whole thing's moot. Maybe it's a
>sort of virus that infects inwomb babies. Maybe little germ dudes
>enter the bloodstream randomly, and bestow power on the hosts.
Magic as a disease, with squibs and muggles genetically resistant to it.
Add in "jumping genes" and I like it.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
DJ <Dora...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thom Madura <Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> DaveD wrote:
>> > "Drusilla" <gammanormidsERASET...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> >>> Was that on their first train trip to Hogwarts, Hermione fixed Harry's
>> >>> glasses...???
>> >>> Where did she learn that...?
>>
>> >> IICR. And she read them and studied them all. Also, she had the chance
>> >> to practice.
>>
>> > Well she frequently demonstrated she'd done lots of advanced reading and
>> > more ("Hogwarts, A History", anyone?) judging by her quotes, but surely
>> > if she'd practiced, the MoM would have detected it via the trace as she
>> > was under 17, and being muggle-born, it's unlikely there were any adult
>> > witches or wizards around who could have done it - it would have had to
>> > have been Hermione.
>>
>> detection. We also don't know if doing them when no muggles were around
>> changes the situation.
Officially, it doesn't, because the Twins complain about the restriction
even though they routinely break it at home in their room - the fact that
they are in a magical household covers any magic they do. Hermione is
a different case entirely. Since she was not yet in Hogwarts, any magic
she managed to do just from reading the books and owning a wand was still
considered accidental childish magic, just like Harry's accidental magic
when he was in school. The same applies to Tom Riddle's magic in the
orphanage - until you are actually officially in Hogwarts, any magic
you do is considered random and not punishable. Once you have entered
Hogwarts, though, you are limited by the rule, which is title the
"reasonable" restriction of underage magic, not the "total" restriction.
>> Hermione specifically said that she tried some spells - but we
>> don't know which ones
>> Harry got into trouble when he "blew up his aunt". My guess is that the
>> ministry does allow a minor amount of magic to get by. If they did not
>> =- every piece of unintentional magic would set off their radar alarms -
>> and they would get no peace at all.
>Also, I seem to recall a conversation between Dumbledore and Tom
>Riddle about following the magical rules once one decides to be a part
>of their world... I think it's safe to say the Ministry would hardly
>be able to punish Riddle (or Hermione, for that matter) when they are
>fully aware that muggles have no clue that magic even exists,
>nevermind a whole set of laws and infrastructure.
The point of the rule is to prevent muggles from finding out.
Whenever magical artifacts get into muggle hands, Arthur has to go
get them and have muggle witnesses obliviated.
It does mean that under ordinary circumstances the MoM ought to
be more subtle than that idiot Mafalda Hopkirk was when she sent
a notice by owl to a muggle household. If any notices went to
Riddle's orphanage after he entered Hogwarts, they must have been
better disguised and probably were hand-carried by a human.
>Another thing that comes to mind is the campsite for the World Cup.
>There were kids all over practicing magic, like the boy who hit the
>slug with an engorgement charm, or the two kids riding on their toy
>brooms, all the while there's Ministry officals present, yet there's
>no mention of the children being charged with a violation of the
>Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Wizardry.
Technically, using a magical toy isn't practicing magic; the Twins
used that to excuse their use of Arthur's car; they didn't have to
cast a spell, just push a button.
The officials were fretting about the parents letting it happen even
in a closed campsite. Under the age of 11, it's the magical parents'
responsibility to control the kids, who don't normally have wands.
The two-year-old had grabbed his father's wand and randomly hit the
slug with it.
> But they probably draw the line at 11, when children
>begin their formal magical education.
That's exactly how it works.
=Tamar
Thom Madura
However - the weasley's manage to have a quidditch match at their house
while the twins, ron, and ginny are still in school.
Ron Hunter
While it is not clearly stated in the books, it seems that the ministry
can't actually tell who is doing magic, where, only that someone has
been doing magic in an area. The Weasley children all get away with
doing some magic, as long as their parents are home, and the level of
magic isn't high. Certainly, Fred and George manage to do magic
regularly without being cited by the MoM. Harry, is watched more
carefully, and, since he is in a muggle area, any magic is attributed to
him, even if it is done by a house elf.
Toon
wrote:
>Also, I seem to recall a conversation between Dumbledore and Tom
>Riddle about following the magical rules once one decides to be a part
>of their world... I think its safe to say the Ministry would hardly
>be able to punish Riddle (or Hermione, for that matter) when they are
>fully aware that muggles have no clue that magic even exists,
>nevermind a whole set of laws and infrastructure.
>
>Another thing that comes to mind is the campsite for the World Cup.
>There were kids all over practicing magic, like the boy who hit the
>slug with an engorgement charm, or the two kids riding on their toy
>brooms, all the while there's Ministry officals present, yet there's
>no mention of the children being charged with a violation of the
>Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Wizardry. But they probably
>draw the line at 11, when children begin their formal magical
>education. Just a thought.
No Muggles present, accept that poor guy they kept Obliviating. The
rules exist to keep Muggles from the truth. No Muggles no problems.
Toon
wrote:
>
>It does mean that under ordinary circumstances the MoM ought to
>be more subtle than that idiot Mafalda Hopkirk was when she sent
>a notice by owl to a muggle household. If any notices went to
>Riddle's orphanage after he entered Hogwarts, they must have been
>better disguised and probably were hand-carried by a human.
Yes, in an orphanage, there's a great potential for anybody finding
such letters. Heck, even Lily and Snape were reading Petunia's
letters with Dumbledore (Man, that is a weird sentence to write).
Multiply that by however many kids are there, and you might as well be
sending up fireworks announcing wizards are real.
Toon
<cw...@SPAMfreenet.de> wrote:
>Perhaps someone is also working on a decent psychological profile of
>Snape.
Let's start with his aversion towards Shampoo.
Toon
wrote:
>In article <9u9br3tfvs6gs6dhr...@4ax.com>,
Jumping genes? Maybe that's why some Apparate better than others.
Toon
wrote:
Maybe they knew it was a House Elf, but a wizard is expected to
control a Hosue Elf, be it their's or a visiting one. The same as how
parents are responsible for kids.
Thom Madura
1 - Elves magic has been described as somehow different
2 - I don't think house elves are truly free to "visit" without their
masters permission - which is why Dobbie did not want the Malfoy's to know.
3 - It doesn't make sense to make an underage person responsible for
another's actions. Maybe an adult should be - but it is normally the
adult that is responsible for the child - not the other way around (The
hosue elves we know are adults)
Igenlode Wordsmith
Oh, that one's easy: it's a waste of time, and just who has he got to
prettify himself up for anyway? I mean, why would he *want* to have
soft, silky hair -- to match his soft, silky-feeling insides?
Doesn't match the image, and it would probably make him feel like a
right twit trying it.
Lucius, on the other hand, is the type who probably goes in for
gentlemen's grooming products...
--
Igenlode Wordsmith
Igenlode's erratic blog:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=257221781
DaveD
"Deevo" <mcke...@NOSPAMmidwest.com.au> wrote in message
news:13ras3d...@corp.supernews.com...
I'm sure this is covered in the books (so it's canon), that the MoM expects
magical parents to look after their children, but although the kids still
have the trace on them till they're 17, their parents' presence disguises
any magic they might do, muggles or no.
Conversely, muggle-borns don't have that "protection" so any magic they do
outside of Hogwarts is potentially seen by the MoM, although whether or not
the MoM always/sometimes/rarely do anything about it is another matter.
Harry may be closely scrutinised, but so might Hermione, though she was
probably less likely to break the rules.
But I did get the impression that any magic outside school is against the
rules, and I assume probably against the law as well. I suppose the question
is does the Restriction against Underage Use of Magic (if that's the correct
name) prohibit underage use in front of muggles, or just underage use,
except in the case of an emergency?
DaveD
DaveD
> Richard Eney wrote:
>> In article
>> <d90ce071-a9f4-4ed6...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>> DJ <Dora...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thom Madura <Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>> DaveD wrote:
>>>>> "Drusilla" <gammanormidsERASET...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> The Translucent Amoebae escribió:
Yes, but the twins in particular are well known for ignoring the rules,
indeed for enjoying breaking them! And as brooms are magical objects, I
don't think using them is the quite the same as casting a spell. Though
you're presumably still in trouble if muggles see!
DaveD
davide...@doramail.com
> My guess would be that it is not just the magic - but whether it is done
> when muggles are around to see it.
Muggles who are not aware of magic though.
Harry's uncle and aunt know about magic and nothing happened when
Vernon saw the flying car.
It is rather strange to imagine the schoo and the minister checking
not only all instances of magic but
having to discriminate between magic who is a threat to the secrecy of
the magical world and magic which isn't.
davide...@doramail.com
I'd like to think of it as piano playing.
It's not in your genes but in your passion, willingness and
sensitivity to that world.
I'd like to think of predisposition to magic as a potential of all
human beings which develops in those people
who push their awareness to the next level (either for the good
reasons or the evil ones)
In a way it seems to me as muggles have their awareness regulated to a
lower level so that they are almost
unaware of magic happening around them (i.e. the binary 9 3/4) A kind
of magic daltonism.
Another example is brainwaves. Different brainwaves provide different
awareness and cognitive skills.
On researches about people with extraordinary faculties (which can be
considered a first step towards magic)
what has always been observed is a different brainwaves map. But we're
not born with a pre-made brainwaves map,
we influence it. Alpha, beta, delta and theta are know. Maybe magic
resides in a new brainwave like gamma or epsilon.
After all if we think of magic through the history we notice that the
topic was esoterically complex and dealing
with many aspects, conscious and subconscious, and the human spiritual
nature and that it was never treated as
a simple predictable down-on-earth passing genes thing.
And if you think about it it's hard to consider magic dependand on
random genes since in spite of human wizards and witches there a whole
magical world out there living on its own and again the concepts of
"awareness" of that world and "brain functions" sounds more logical.
It seems like wizards and witches have a stronger mental link and
hence control of that side of existence. But that side of existence
(the magical world) exists per se even without people with magical
powers.
If you have ever read a book of Lewontin you'll know this famous
genetist points out that genes are potential and that we are not born
with specific activated genes but with a lot of genes and our choices
and our environment will determine which will be triggered. Speaking
of Type II diabetes. There's no gene that causes type II diabetes but
a overall genetic predisposition that GIVEN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND
CHOICES make the triggering of diabetes far easier.
But it is not uncommon for someone with a genetic predisposition to
diabetes to never develop it and for someone with no genetic
predisposition developing a severe case of diabetes. In a way this
real behavior of genes (so different from the cultural myth) would
provide a possible explanation as to why certain magical parents have
chilren with no powers and certain muggle parents have childrne with
huge powers.
In my opinion a more correct understanding of the world (the magical
one too) implies that we talk about "potentials" rather than a fixed
inborn clear-cut nature.
(just for thought I think)
Davide
jaz...@yahoo.com
> Are we sure magic is enterely genetical?. . . . .
>> If you have ever read a book of Lewontin you'll know this famous
> genetist points out that genes are potential and that we are not born
> with specific activated genes but with a lot of genes and our choices
> and our environment will determine which will be triggered. Speaking
> of Type II diabetes. There's no gene that causes type II diabetes but
> a overall genetic predisposition that GIVEN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND
> CHOICES make the triggering of diabetes far easier.
> But it is not uncommon for someone with a genetic predisposition to
> diabetes to never develop it and for someone with no genetic
> Davide
Many medical professionals would disagree with this interpretation
of the effects of Type II Diabetes genes. The more common view is
that lifestyle can accelerate or delay the onset of high blood sugars
but if you have the genes, you will exhibit Type II sooner or
later. Sooner might be age 15; later might be age 95.
Lifestyle cannot change the defect in beta cells which causes
production of a faulty version of the hormone Amylin and the resultant
beta cell apoptosis due to Islet Amyloid Polypeptides.
Regards
Jason
Toon
<dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Conversely, muggle-borns don't have that "protection" so any magic they do
>outside of Hogwarts is potentially seen by the MoM, although whether or not
>the MoM always/sometimes/rarely do anything about it is another matter.
>Harry may be closely scrutinised, but so might Hermione, though she was
>probably less likely to break the rules.
Fudge said Harry is watched extra closely. If so, his venalities
might be more severe than most. perhaps Elf magic is distinguishable
from Wizard magic.
>But I did get the impression that any magic outside school is against the
>rules, and I assume probably against the law as well. I suppose the question
>is does the Restriction against Underage Use of Magic (if that's the correct
>name) prohibit underage use in front of muggles, or just underage use,
>except in the case of an emergency?
Well define emergency? Apparently a Dementor attack doesn't count.
Toon
wrote:
>On 15 Feb, 13:22, Thom Madura <Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> My guess would be that it is not just the magic - but whether it is done
>> when muggles are around to see it.
>
>Muggles who are not aware of magic though.
>Harry's uncle and aunt know about magic and nothing happened when
>Vernon saw the flying car.
But Harry got in trouble for magic in front of a muggle: Dudley.
Toon
wrote:
>Are we sure magic is enterely genetical?
Well, considering how many families get it, yes. Might not be limited
to genetics. AIDS is supposedly transmittable only through Sex,
mother to baby, or sharing needles. But a little girl got it (WAH!)
through none of the above.
>I'd like to think of it as piano playing.
>It's not in your genes but in your passion, willingness and
>sensitivity to that world.
>I'd like to think of predisposition to magic as a potential of all
>human beings which develops in those people
>who push their awareness to the next level (either for the good
>reasons or the evil ones)
Which most babies/kids aren't doing, yet still it manifests in them.
>In a way it seems to me as muggles have their awareness regulated to a
>lower level so that they are almost
>unaware of magic happening around them (i.e. the binary 9 3/4) A kind
>of magic daltonism.
Partly by choice. They don't want there to be magic.
>Another example is brainwaves. Different brainwaves provide different
>awareness and cognitive skills.
>On researches about people with extraordinary faculties (which can be
>considered a first step towards magic)
>what has always been observed is a different brainwaves map. But we're
>not born with a pre-made brainwaves map,
>we influence it. Alpha, beta, delta and theta are know. Maybe magic
>resides in a new brainwave like gamma or epsilon.
and tin hats can influence it too. An experiment showed it does block
many radio waves and such. It also enhances some, namely the Gov's
frequencies.
>After all if we think of magic through the history we notice that the
>topic was esoterically complex and dealing
>with many aspects, conscious and subconscious, and the human spiritual
>nature and that it was never treated as
>a simple predictable down-on-earth passing genes thing.
Actually, it's highly predicable. The Longbottoms couldn't believe
Neville hadn't manifested yet. Hagrid finds the idea of a squib Harry
preposterous. You theories don't appear much in the books.
>And if you think about it it's hard to consider magic dependand on
>random genes
Not really. A sort of M factor that gives out magical prowess.
>since in spite of human wizards and witches there a whole
>magical world out there living on its own and again the concepts of
>"awareness" of that world and "brain functions" sounds more logical.
Sounds doesn't mean is. The M factor arose way back in prehistory,
even before humans.
>It seems like wizards and witches have a stronger mental link and
>hence control of that side of existence. But that side of existence
>(the magical world) exists per se even without people with magical
>powers.
Because people didn't create it.
>But it is not uncommon for someone with a genetic predisposition to
>diabetes to never develop it and for someone with no genetic
>predisposition developing a severe case of diabetes. In a way this
>real behavior of genes (so different from the cultural myth) would
>provide a possible explanation as to why certain magical parents have
>chilren with no powers and certain muggle parents have childrne with
>huge powers.
The sheer number indicate it's activated at Birh.
>In my opinion a more correct understanding of the world (the magical
>one too) implies that we talk about "potentials" rather than a fixed
>inborn clear-cut nature.
If so, Petunia would be a witch. And contrary to what people
insisted, she's all Muggle.
Thom Madura
Since Dudley knew about magic - I doubt he would count - but Harry got
in trouble for magic he didn't perform. THere are just so many holes in
this "law" that I doubt even JKR could justify all of them. There would
be a question of even what Hermione did to her parents being underage magic.
Thom Madura
THere are just so many holes in the "law" that we have seen in the books
to make the law really hard to pin down. Obviously - there are spells
and charms that apparently do not reach the concern stage - for instance
- Harry using Lumos to read his books. The Weasley's certainly have
gotten away with an awful lot of magic - but also remember that Draco
even said that he had his own broom in Ps/SS - so even he did underage
magic. Hermione fixed Harry's glasses before they got to school too.
Neville "bounced".
So - the problem we have is that it appears that the underage wizards DO
perform magic quite regularly - some times not under their control. It
would seem that there has to be a threshold of magic to be noticed. Even
at the Quidditch match - the underage kids performed magic. It cannot be
that all underage magic is illegal in every case.
Thom Madura
Well - that depends on whether they can distinguish a dementor or not too.
Drusilla
> Toon wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:32:09 GMT, "DaveD"
>> <dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Conversely, muggle-borns don't have that "protection" so any magic
>>> they do outside of Hogwarts is potentially seen by the MoM, although
>>> whether or not the MoM always/sometimes/rarely do anything about it
>>> is another matter. Harry may be closely scrutinised, but so might
>>> Hermione, though she was probably less likely to break the rules.
>>
>> Fudge said Harry is watched extra closely. If so, his venalities
>> might be more severe than most. perhaps Elf magic is distinguishable
>> from Wizard magic.
>>
>>> But I did get the impression that any magic outside school is against
>>> the rules, and I assume probably against the law as well. I suppose
>>> the question is does the Restriction against Underage Use of Magic
>>> (if that's the correct name) prohibit underage use in front of
>>> muggles, or just underage use, except in the case of an emergency?
I think both. Although I guess when the magic is performed in front of
muggle that knows about the magic, it only breaks the rule of Underage
Magic, but not the Secrecy Statute (or whatever is the name for that, I
really can't remember now). Whatsoever, Harry's case is different, as
they wanted to set him up. Either way, it's still odd because Duddley is
aware of his cousin being a wizard. Why there was such a fuss about
"performing magic in front of a muggle"? Dudley is not ordinary muggle,
he knew about the Wizard World.
>> Well define emergency? Apparently a Dementor attack doesn't count.
>
> Well - that depends on whether they can distinguish a dementor or not too.
It was never resolved the origin of the Dementors, IICR. Luckily, they
believed Harry was saying the truth and he was innocent because he was
trying to protect himself, but in other circumstance, a Dementor attack
would have been acceptable, IMO.
Drusilla
Wasn't she already 17 at that time?
Drusilla
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:25:48 -0800 (PST), davide...@doramail.com
> wrote:
>
>> On 15 Feb, 13:22, Thom Madura <Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> My guess would be that it is not just the magic - but whether it is done
>>> when muggles are around to see it.
>> Muggles who are not aware of magic though.
>> Harry's uncle and aunt know about magic and nothing happened when
>> Vernon saw the flying car.
I guess they can't detect the magic of the car. Because it wasn't that
they actually perform a spell at that time. Apparently, the MoM only
detects magic performed by a magical being, not a magical artifact
working. (The Magic Wand doesn't work, because the magic comes from the
wizard)
> But Harry got in trouble for magic in front of a muggle: Dudley.
Dudley is an special case here. He might know about Harry but perhaps
the MoM doesn't consider underage relatives, just the tutors. Or the MoM
doesn't know he exists and just sensed that Harry was near "some muggle".
Drusilla
Because in Dobby's case, his masters wouldn't like him to go and alert
Harry or have any kind of contact with him at all. Elves can appear from
any place to wherever their master call them. Even if they are visiting
a friend, as soon as their master call, they arrive in time.
Drusilla
No magic is performed by the kids. The broom are already charmed, they
don't need to charm them to fly.
Drusilla
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:46:10 GMT, "DaveD"
> <dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>> Her parents bought her more books than those required by Hogwarts, IICR.
>>> And she read them and studied them all. Also, she had the chance to
>>> practice.
>>
>> Well she frequently demonstrated she'd done lots of advanced reading and
>> more ("Hogwarts, A History", anyone?)
>
>
>> judging by her quotes, but surely if
>> she'd practiced, the MoM would have detected it via the trace as she was
>> under 17, and being muggle-born, it's unlikely there were any adult witches
>> or wizards around who could have done it - it would have had to have been
>> Hermione.
>
> she's magical. Wizard borns know of magic from watching their family,
> and seem to perform it on and off (the Twins with Ron's
> Teddy/Unbreakable Vow attempt, Draco and Harry flying on brooms, be
> them toy or real, at young ages.) Muggleborns might need to practice
> just to get used to it all.
Officially, they can't do magic after the first year, when they receive
a letter that say they can't do it (IICR). Before that, they don't know
such a law exist. And mostly magic is completely involuntary: they can't
control it. Once they finish the first year, they can and it's easier to
prevent any accidental magic. And I guess the MoM can't distinguish
voluntary magic from accidental magic anyway.
Ron Hunter
Type II diabetes most usually sets in much later in life than Type I.
Lifestyle changes, and medication, can control Type II diabetes, in most
cases. My blood glucose was only 94 this morning! GREAT!
Eating properly, exercising, and losing weight all play a part. It CAN
be done.
Ron Hunter
Of course it did. He was acquitted, wasn't he?
Ron Hunter
Perhaps that is why the law is phrased with the word "reasonable"
restriction of underage magic.....
Ron Hunter
It also appears they can't detect magic done without a wand, unless it
exceeds a certain level of power, or perhaps they just don't care about
that level of magic. I believe there is something about 'household
spells' that is some sort of exemption.
Toon
In all fairness, many laws have giant loopholes in them. and
exceptions have been made for one and not others. But that's why we
fight over precedent.
Toon
<gammanormi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Because in Dobby's case, his masters wouldn't like him to go and alert
>Harry or have any kind of contact with him at all. Elves can appear from
>any place to wherever their master call them. Even if they are visiting
>a friend, as soon as their master call, they arrive in time.
And can hitch a ride with another. As Dobby did with Kreacher.
Toon
wrote:
>Toon wrote:
Seems more on a technicality, and the way DD presented the info. And
to avoid MOM responsibility in releasing Demtnors on people.
That whole trial was non typical, I'm not sure we can use it to prove
or disprove anything.
Toon
wrote:
>Perhaps that is why the law is phrased with the word "reasonable"
>restriction of underage magic.....
Not that the MOM is very reasonable. And reasonable is too broad a
term, easily modified to allow for biasesness.
Drusilla
I guess that as the MoM can't detect who performs the magic, there is no
problem on a wizard that practices some simple and basic spells with
his/her parents or an older sibling. And a responsible parent won't
allow his/her children to try with advanced spells that might be
dangerous. In Harry's case, they know he was the only wizard in the
house: any magic comes from him.
Drusilla
With people like Arthur Weasley, yes, probably.
DaveD
"Toon" <to...@toon.com> wrote in message
news:0a6jr3d4cb228t1v6...@4ax.com...
In CoS, when Harry is blamed for Dobby's magic, the letter from Mafalda
Hopkirk says:
"...underage wizards are not permitted to perform spells outside school and
further spellwork ... may lead to expulsion from said school (Decree for
Reasonable Restriction of Underage sorcery, 1875, Paragraph C)."
However, doing magic in front of muggles is a separate matter:
"We would also ask you to remember that any magical activity which risks
notice by [muggles] is a serious offence, under section 13 of the
International Confederation of Warlocks' Statute of Secrecy."
In OotP, Fudge didn't try to make out a dementor attack wasn't an emergency,
he tried to show that Harry invented the circumstances and just did magic
without there being an emergency. As Harry got off the charge, I'd say
dementor attacks do count as an emergency - at least in the view of those
voting in the "court"!
DaveD
DaveD
"Drusilla" <gammanormi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fpdpt6$l6q$1...@aioe.org...
Yes, that's the bit I don't understand - what's the problem if the muggle
knows you're a wizard (just imagine all those offences being committed in
Diagon Alley just because Hermione is there with her muggle parents!)
>>> Well define emergency? Apparently a Dementor attack doesn't count.
>>
>> Well - that depends on whether they can distinguish a dementor or not
>> too.
>
> It was never resolved the origin of the Dementors, IICR. Luckily, they
> believed Harry was saying the truth and he was innocent because he was
> trying to protect himself, but in other circumstance, a Dementor attack
> would have been acceptable, IMO.
I think Umbridge admits to setting the dementors on Harry, but that might
have come from an interview with JKR rather than being explained in the
books.
DaveD
Drusilla
Umbridge confessed it, but I meant to say that it was never explained
_during_ Harry's hearing. They didn't know where the Dementors came
from, that's why many doubted Harry was telling the truth. If they had
known that they were sent by someone that worked at the Ministry of
Magic, no way Harry could have been accused at all.
Toon
<gammanormi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Umbridge confessed it, but I meant to say that it was never explained
>_during_ Harry's hearing. They didn't know where the Dementors came
>from, that's why many doubted Harry was telling the truth. If they had
>known that they were sent by someone that worked at the Ministry of
>Magic, no way Harry could have been accused at all.
But who'd believe a MOM employee would do that? Even DD only hinted
at it. The end result was an investigation into how they got there.
But if DD had known, and accuses Umbridge, well, how many would
believe a Government person would deliberately seek to hurt it's own
people, then lie about it afterwards and cover it up. Umbridge would
probably insist her intelligence reports proved a major DE was there,
and Harry got attacked by mistake.
Ron Hunter
Almost anyone with personal experience with being on the wrong side of a
dispute of any kind with just about ANY government would see this as
VERY believable. Governments are made up of people, and many people are
prone to cruel, inhumane, and even vicious, actions. Many have their
own agendas, and most are ambitious, often in the extreme. Ask any Jew
who lived in Germany in 1940-1945!
scenario_dave
Selective enforcement. Police don't have time to enforce every
single law in the real world. If the police enforced every single
law,every single time, everyone in the country would be arrested or
fined for something just about every single week. For example, in
many states in the U.S. standing around doing nothing in a public
place for an extended period of time is a crime. It is usually only
enforced on people that are considered undesirable, like the homeless,
gang members or suspected drug dealers. Its rarely enforced
otherwise.
The MoM can't tell whose doing magic in a wizarding home. They can
tell in a muggle home but I can't see them sending out someone every
time someone uses a minor spell that is unlikely to draw attention.
Spells cast outside the house is much a more serious issue.
A law like this is going to be enforced in two circumstances, blatent
spells and known trouble makers. A blatent offence would be like
casting a spell in the middle of a shopping center. It would cause a
major headache to the MoM and they would have to punish the offender.
If someone did something like that, then the MoM would start to
enforce the law on them every time after that to be sure they didn't
do it again.
Harry is considered a known trouble maker by many people in the MoM,
so he would be much more likely to be charged that a typical wizard
living in a muggle home.
Klaus Opel
Hi out there,
There are 27 100% secure identified, 11 dominant and 7 of them
recessive and 9 changing, that have the potential to give their bearer
magical powers.
Of those 27 genes you need 21 in working condition to be able to use
the powers they give.
The changing genes are recessive when coming from a non-magical
person, when coming from an already magical person they gain strangth
and become dominant, but lose their dominance again, when the new-born
has not enough magical genes to hold up their magical strengt.
Klaus
Louis Epstein
: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:11:59 -0500, Steve Morrison <rim...@toast.net>
: wrote:
:
:>Sirius Kase wrote:
:>
:>> On Feb 13, 10:33?pm, dicc...@radix.net (Richard Eney) wrote:
:>>> In article <foupqd$qg...@registered.motzarella.org>,
:>>>
:>>>
:>>> santosh ?<santosh....@gmail.com> wrote:
:>>> >davideb_mu...@doramail.com wrote:
:>>>
:>>> >> There's something I don't understand
:>>> >> If Hermione's parents are muggles without power how can she have
:>>> >> powers herself?
:>>> >There was magical blood somewhere in her ancestry.
:>>>
:>>> >> Aren't powers heired from one's parents. How can a child of two
:>>> >> muggles be a witch?
:>>>
:>>> >Are all your genes derived only from your parents? And where do they get
:>>> >their genes? As I said, there must have been some ancestors who were
:>>> >magical. It happened to express once in Hermione for whatever reason.
:>>> >Rowling doesn't explain these things in detail.
:>>>
:>>> JKR said that all magical people had someone magical in their ancestry,
:>>> but she seems to have forgotten that somebody had to be the first
:>>> magical person. ?Either that or all beings were magical to begin with
:>>> and then the squibs took over and were dominant, which doesn't work
:>>> either since JKR also says magic is dominant.
:>>
:>> So who's the mutant - the wizard or the muggle?
:>>>
:>>> I prefer the explanation in book 1, it just happens that sometimes
:>>> someone is born with magic. ?Once it's there, it usually passes to
:>>> the next generation, but not always.
:>>
:>> Which sounds more like genetics than environment. I believe in a very
:>> old thread, we concluded that magic is apparently a very rare dominate
:>> gene. But, that does't explain squibs.
:>>>
:>>> And who is to say that magic might not express itself in good dentistry?
:>>
:>> They just have the knack
:>
:>The British Medical Journal had a paper last December on the "origins of
:>magic" which concluded that although magic seems to have a genetic basis,
:>it involves more than one gene. Here's the link:
:>
:>http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7633/1299
:
: But do we know it's common in twins? We know of two twins, both
: identical (The Weasely and Patils). The fact that there aren't more
: twins shown indicates it's probably rare for twins to have magic.
: Or twins are rare in the UK.
Or the very small sample we are shown makes it impossible
to pass judgement on the rarity of twins in the wizarding
world.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein
: In article <foupqd$qg1$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
: santosh <santo...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>davide...@doramail.com wrote:
:>
:>> There's something I don't understand
:>> If Hermione's parents are muggles without power how can she have
:>> powers herself?
:>
:>There was magical blood somewhere in her ancestry.
:>
:>> Aren't powers heired from one's parents. How can a child of two
:>> muggles be a witch?
:>
:>Are all your genes derived only from your parents? And where do they get
:>their genes? As I said, there must have been some ancestors who were
:>magical. It happened to express once in Hermione for whatever reason.
:>Rowling doesn't explain these things in detail.
:
: JKR said that all magical people had someone magical in their ancestry,
: but she seems to have forgotten that somebody had to be the first
: and then the squibs took over and were dominant, which doesn't work
: either since JKR also says magic is dominant.
Just where do you see a contradiction?
All magical people are descended from the first magical person,
some through known magical lineages and some not,though no one
has a complete family tree that unites "pure" and "half" and
"mud" blood to show they're all kin.
: I prefer the explanation in book 1, it just happens that sometimes
: someone is born with magic. Once it's there, it usually passes to
: the next generation, but not always.
:
: And who is to say that magic might not express itself in good dentistry?
:
:>> How can she found out about her powers
:>
:>They start manifesting during childhood.
:>
:>> and how Hogwarts can know about
:>> her, contact her and admit her to the school?
:>
:>Hogwarts has, apparently, a special "quill" that records the birth of
:>every magical child in England. They would've contacted her and her
:>parents via the usual letter and perhaps through a staff member as
:>well, since they would've have been new to the wizarding world.
:
: You know, that series of questions sounds like homework,
: or at least an online quiz:
:
: How did Hermione get her powers, Did she inherit them,
: How did she find out she had them, How did Hogwarts know about her...
:
: =Tamar
Louis Epstein
: On Feb 17, 7:05?pm, davideb_mu...@doramail.com wrote:
:> Are we sure magic is enterely genetical?. . . . .
:>> If you have ever read a book of Lewontin you'll know this famous
:> genetist points out that genes are potential and that we are not born
:> with specific activated genes but with a lot of genes and our choices
:> and our environment will determine which will be triggered. Speaking
:> of Type II diabetes. There's no gene that causes type II diabetes but
:> a overall genetic predisposition that GIVEN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND
:> CHOICES make the triggering of diabetes far easier.
:> But it is not uncommon for someone with a genetic predisposition to
:> diabetes to never develop it and for someone with no genetic
:> predisposition developing a severe case of diabetes. . . . .
:
: > Davide
:
: Many medical professionals would disagree with this interpretation
: of the effects of Type II Diabetes genes. The more common view is
: that lifestyle can accelerate or delay the onset of high blood sugars
: but if you have the genes, you will exhibit Type II sooner or
: later. Sooner might be age 15; later might be age 95.
:
: Lifestyle cannot change the defect in beta cells which causes
: production of a faulty version of the hormone Amylin and the
: resultant beta cell apoptosis due to Islet Amyloid Polypeptides.
:
: Regards
: Jason
Amyl nitrate's a dangerous drug.
Amyloid plaques are a sign of dementia.
Amyloidosis kills our oldest old.
Those four letters seem a sign of doom...
Louis Epstein
: It's not in your genes but in your passion, willingness and
: sensitivity to that world.
: I'd like to think of predisposition to magic as a potential of all
: human beings which develops in those people
: who push their awareness to the next level (either for the good
: reasons or the evil ones)
:
: In a way it seems to me as muggles have their awareness regulated to a
: lower level so that they are almost
: unaware of magic happening around them (i.e. the binary 9 3/4) A kind
: of magic daltonism.
: Another example is brainwaves. Different brainwaves provide different
: awareness and cognitive skills.
: On researches about people with extraordinary faculties (which can be
: considered a first step towards magic)
: what has always been observed is a different brainwaves map. But we're
: not born with a pre-made brainwaves map,
: we influence it. Alpha, beta, delta and theta are know. Maybe magic
: resides in a new brainwave like gamma or epsilon.
:
: After all if we think of magic through the history we notice that the
: topic was esoterically complex and dealing
: with many aspects, conscious and subconscious, and the human spiritual
: nature and that it was never treated as
: a simple predictable down-on-earth passing genes thing.
:
: And if you think about it it's hard to consider magic dependand on
: random genes since in spite of human wizards and witches there a whole
: magical world out there living on its own and again the concepts of
: "awareness" of that world and "brain functions" sounds more logical.
: It seems like wizards and witches have a stronger mental link and
: hence control of that side of existence. But that side of existence
: (the magical world) exists per se even without people with magical
: powers.
:
: If you have ever read a book of Lewontin you'll know this famous
: genetist points out that genes are potential and that we are not born
: with specific activated genes but with a lot of genes and our choices
: and our environment will determine which will be triggered. Speaking
: of Type II diabetes. There's no gene that causes type II diabetes but
: a overall genetic predisposition that GIVEN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND
: CHOICES make the triggering of diabetes far easier.
: But it is not uncommon for someone with a genetic predisposition to
: diabetes to never develop it and for someone with no genetic
: real behavior of genes (so different from the cultural myth) would
: provide a possible explanation as to why certain magical parents have
: chilren with no powers and certain muggle parents have childrne with
: huge powers.
:
: In my opinion a more correct understanding of the world (the magical
: one too) implies that we talk about "potentials" rather than a fixed
: inborn clear-cut nature.
:
: (just for thought I think)
:
:
: Davide
This notion doesn't hold water,I believe.
If it were true,magic could be awakened in a very large
proportion of the population...and there's no sign this
is the case.If it were,a stable magical community as depicted
is very unlikely to have been established.
Louis Epstein
: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:46:10 GMT, "DaveD"
: <dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
:
:>
:
:>> Her parents bought her more books than those required by Hogwarts, IICR.
:>> And she read them and studied them all. Also, she had the chance to
:>> practice.
:>
:>
:>Well she frequently demonstrated she'd done lots of advanced reading and
:>more ("Hogwarts, A History", anyone?)
:
: Nobody reads that. For all we know, she's making those facts up.
Given a chance,I'd read it cover to cover.
:> judging by her quotes, but surely if
:>she'd practiced, the MoM would have detected it via the trace as she was
:>under 17, and being muggle-born, it's unlikely there were any adult witches
:>or wizards around who could have done it - it would have had to have been
:>Hermione.
:
: she might have had special permission to practice, just to help prove
: she's magical. Wizard borns know of magic from watching their family,
: and seem to perform it on and off (the Twins with Ron's
: Teddy/Unbreakable Vow attempt, Draco and Harry flying on brooms, be
: them toy or real, at young ages.) Muggleborns might need to practice
: just to get used to it all.
Seems the rules take effect when you enter Hogwarts,
not when you're first invited there.
(Some assume the letters are sent on 11th birthdays,
but remember that Harry had been getting letters
intercepted for the previous week.Hermione was born
well before Harry and could have,if the letters are
always delivered by the birthday,had almost a year
to practice!)
Phil Turner
> <dic...@radix.net> wrote:
<snip>
>:
>: JKR said that all magical people had someone magical in their ancestry,
>: but she seems to have forgotten that somebody had to be the first
>: magical person. Either that or all beings were magical to begin with
>: and then the squibs took over and were dominant, which doesn't work
>: either since JKR also says magic is dominant.
>Just where do you see a contradiction?
>All magical people are descended from the first magical person,
>some through known magical lineages and some not,though no one
>has a complete family tree that unites "pure" and "half" and
>"mud" blood to show they're all kin.
Alternatively, given that there are magical creatures that can
interbreed with humans, the "someone magical" in a witch or
wizard's ancestry need not be human.
<snip>
--
Remove any bits of tatt after the at in my address to reply