Prohibition on studentn magic.
Sky Rider
the MoM.
We have discussed this awhile.... but nobody brought up the Hermione's
deliberate use of magic outside school. In the train on the way (where
they all first met) she says she's tried a few spells and they all
worked for her.....
.... I wonder how come *she* wasn't warned off.... and why there is no
warning in the letter telling students something to the effect of.....
"Do NOT try the spells in your new books at home!"... or similar ??
--
SkyRider
**********
Visit the Online Dictionary of Playground Slang
and leave your favourites-: http://www.odps.cyberscriber.com
Aug. 2002 Update:
1000 extra words, reminiscences, poems and song lyrics added!
**********
Steven Sousa
>
> The first time Harry used magic outside Hogwarts, he was jumped on by
> the MoM.
>
> We have discussed this awhile.... but nobody brought up the Hermione's
> deliberate use of magic outside school. In the train on the way (where
> they all first met) she says she's tried a few spells and they all
> worked for her.....
>
> .... I wonder how come *she* wasn't warned off.... and why there is no
> warning in the letter telling students something to the effect of.....
> "Do NOT try the spells in your new books at home!"... or similar ??
I suppose that the rule only begins to apply once you've started school.
Since Hermione wasn't humpable...er, I mean, a student yet, she didn't
get in trouble. It seems to be fairly common that pre-Hogwarts age
children are always using magic by accident. They can't control it, but
without training I suppose their nascent magical powers can't do
anything *too* harmful.
--
Steven Sousa
"France was overrun by mad cow disease when the French army, sent to
stop an incoming shipment of hamburger, instead surrendered to it." -
Dave Barry
Simon.
wrote:
>The first time Harry used magic outside Hogwarts, he was jumped on by
>the MoM.
>
>We have discussed this awhile.... but nobody brought up the Hermione's
>deliberate use of magic outside school. In the train on the way (where
>they all first met) she says she's tried a few spells and they all
>worked for her.....
>
>.... I wonder how come *she* wasn't warned off.... and why there is no
>warning in the letter telling students something to the effect of.....
>"Do NOT try the spells in your new books at home!"... or similar ??
Good point - it does say so in the book that she tried some for
practice.
Perhaps because it was a surprise (the letter from Hogwarts) there was
no warning about magic outside school before the first term started.
Also perhaps the teachers did not think that any pre-first year pupils
would be capable of any real magic.
Simon.
Please put out the fire to e-mail me.
Skyrider
Simon. <sim...@FIREsjbwool.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
news:g10douoh35t84keel...@4ax.com:
(bear with me... am trying out X-news)
What is 'real' magic though? I suppose the film gives a false impression as
it shows her doing 'real' magic to repair Harry's glasses, but even so if
she'd been reading her books and practicing spells out of them, then that
is much more than the 'accidental' magic she might've performed on and off
before her Hogwarts letter arrived.
I'm belabouring the point (again) as it seems entirely suspicious that
Harry got a warning when Dobby did his party trick.
The prohibition seemsd to apply more to Harry than to the other 'magical
children'. Case in point being Harry's visit to the Weasleys when the twins
were smashing the table in the garden!
I think the strength of prohibition on Harry was for a puspose we don't yet
know.
Skyrider
news:3D8680CD...@aurora.mv.com:
> Sky Rider wrote:
>>
>> The first time Harry used magic outside Hogwarts, he was jumped on by
>> the MoM.
>>
>> We have discussed this awhile.... but nobody brought up the Hermione's
>> deliberate use of magic outside school. In the train on the way (where
>> they all first met) she says she's tried a few spells and they all
>> worked for her.....
>>
>> .... I wonder how come *she* wasn't warned off.... and why there is no
>> warning in the letter telling students something to the effect of.....
>> "Do NOT try the spells in your new books at home!"... or similar ??
>
> I suppose that the rule only begins to apply once you've started school.
> Since Hermione wasn't humpable...er, I mean, a student yet, she didn't
> get in trouble. It seems to be fairly common that pre-Hogwarts age
> children are always using magic by accident. They can't control it, but
> without training I suppose their nascent magical powers can't do
> anything *too* harmful.
Using x-news to see what it's like, hence ancient and strange sig file I
can't change right now.... but.....
The twins spent an afternoon smashing tables together... and Hermione was
testing out spells from her textbooks before going to Hogwarts?
This seems to be an issue with Harry specifically.... maybe to keep his
latent powers in check??
--
Sky Rider
Cloud 9, Oz
----------------------------------
My brain was find working it out didn't strain it out but i bet you did :Ş
(Mad Hatter" "Very Bored" 29/03/99)
----------------------------------
Add *YOUR* favourites to the Online Dictionary of Playground Slang
http://ODPS.CyberScriber.com
Jonathan Buzzard
Skyrider <od...@cyberscriber.com> writes:
[SNIP]
>
> The prohibition seemsd to apply more to Harry than to the other 'magical
> children'. Case in point being Harry's visit to the Weasleys when the twins
> were smashing the table in the garden!
Read the book again, that is Bill and Charlie, both fully qualified
wizards.
> I think the strength of prohibition on Harry was for a puspose we don't yet
> know.
No, it is a general law, as is made clear in the letter to Harry from
the ministry. However the Dobby incident shows us that the detection
is not very specific, so in a magical household it would be impossible
for the ministry to know what is going on, and presumably it is left
to the parents to prevent the unauthorised use of magic.
We can also note that they did not get the letters until the left at the
end of the first year. It is also reasonable to presume that a muggle born
child might not yet know of the restriction.
Finally I would say the issue is enforcement. I doubt the ministry
monitor magical activity at every Hogwarts students house. If you
are careful and don't make any mistakes that need the services of
the accidental magical reversal squad you will get away with it.
On the otherhand it is clear that Harry is closely watched, therefore
any infringment is likely to bring down the full weight of the ministry.
But then he didn't get into trouble for all those accidental uses
of magic before he went to Hogwarts. However after he has been to
Hogwarts blowing aunt Marge up, has a hit squad from the ministry
round in a flash, including the minister for magic (O.K. Black was
on the loose but) you get my drift)
JAB.
--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jona...@buzzard.org.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44(0)1661-832195
Sky Rider
Buzzard) row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro, wrote this note :
>In article <Xns928C913...@139.134.5.33>,
> Skyrider <od...@cyberscriber.com> writes:
>[SNIP]
>> The prohibition seemsd to apply more to Harry than to the other 'magical
>> children'. Case in point being Harry's visit to the Weasleys when the twins
>> were smashing the table in the garden!
>Read the book again, that is Bill and Charlie, both fully qualified
>wizards.
bugger..... I thought it might've been but couldn't find it when I
looked :)
>> I think the strength of prohibition on Harry was for a puspose we don't yet
>> know.
>No, it is a general law, as is made clear in the letter to Harry from
>the ministry. However the Dobby incident shows us that the detection
>is not very specific, so in a magical household it would be impossible
>for the ministry to know what is going on, and presumably it is left
>to the parents to prevent the unauthorised use of magic.
>We can also note that they did not get the letters until the left at the
>end of the first year. It is also reasonable to presume that a muggle born
>child might not yet know of the restriction.
>Finally I would say the issue is enforcement. I doubt the ministry
>monitor magical activity at every Hogwarts students house. If you
>are careful and don't make any mistakes that need the services of
>the accidental magical reversal squad you will get away with it.
>On the otherhand it is clear that Harry is closely watched, therefore
>any infringment is likely to bring down the full weight of the ministry.
>But then he didn't get into trouble for all those accidental uses
>of magic before he went to Hogwarts. However after he has been to
>Hogwarts blowing aunt Marge up, has a hit squad from the ministry
>round in a flash, including the minister for magic (O.K. Black was
>on the loose but) you get my drift)
but......... Hermione was doing 'proper magic'.... why no mention of
the prohibition on the page outlining the book list for example?
Jonathan Buzzard
Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> writes:
[SNIP]
>
> but......... Hermione was doing 'proper magic'.... why no mention of
> the prohibition on the page outlining the book list for example?
Because the magical community just presume these are given. Look how
Harry was left not knowing how to get to platform 9.75 for example.
Sky Rider
Buzzard) row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro, wrote this note :
>[SNIP]
>> but......... Hermione was doing 'proper magic'.... why no mention of
>> the prohibition on the page outlining the book list for example?
>Because the magical community just presume these are given. Look how
>Harry was left not knowing how to get to platform 9.75 for example.
yet another good point... Harry had Hagrid.... who told Hermione how
to get there??
(and I still think there's something fishy about Harry being told not
to do magic at home)
David Robin
wrote:
(SNIPPED)
>
>Using x-news to see what it's like, hence ancient and strange sig file I
>can't change right now.... but.....
>
>The twins spent an afternoon smashing tables together... and Hermione was
>testing out spells from her textbooks before going to Hogwarts?
>
>This seems to be an issue with Harry specifically.... maybe to keep his
>latent powers in check??
Seems doubtful. In CoS, the letter to Harry refers to the
"Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery, 1875,
Paragraph C), as well as section 13 of the International Confederation
of Warlocks' Staute of Secrecy.
We could suppose that the other sections cover things like use of
magic in a magical household (presumably under supervision). It is
funny that the original letters to new students does not prohibit
"experimentation" prior to the start of the term. This may be an
oversight.
While I doubt it is an issue only for Harry--remember we only
have his viewpoint (perhaps Hermione *did* get a letter and didn't
mentionit)--it is the case that the MOM is keeping a particular eye on
Harry and that there are a number of good reasons to do so.
David
Rain Forests
Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> a pris la plume pour dire : /took the
quill to say :
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:50:42 +0100, jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan
> Buzzard) row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro, wrote this note :
>> In article <7a2eou8opliboskmm...@4ax.com>,
>> Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> writes:
>
>> [SNIP]
>
>>> but......... Hermione was doing 'proper magic'.... why no mention of
>>> the prohibition on the page outlining the book list for example?
>
>> Because the magical community just presume these are given. Look how
>> Harry was left not knowing how to get to platform 9.75 for example.
>
> yet another good point... Harry had Hagrid.... who told Hermione how
> to get there??
>
> (and I still think there's something fishy about Harry being told not
> to do magic at home)
I imagine that all muggle born get the compagny of a wizzard specially sent
for that purpose : to show where to go to buy books, etc. and how to go to
the platform - in the case of Harry, Hagrid just forgot to tell him...
Paranutus
"Skyrider" <od...@cyberscriber.com> wrote in message
news:Xns928C91D...@139.134.5.33...
> Steven Sousa <ae...@aurora.mv.com> wrote in
> news:3D8680CD...@aurora.mv.com:
>
> > Sky Rider wrote:
> >>
<snip>
> The twins spent an afternoon smashing tables together... and Hermione was
> testing out spells from her textbooks before going to Hogwarts?
That was Bill and Charlie smashing tables together, both of whom are
qualified wizards.
-Para
Tennant Stuart
Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> wrote:
> The first time Harry used magic outside Hogwarts, he was jumped on by
> the MoM.
> We have discussed this awhile.... but nobody brought up the Hermione's
> deliberate use of magic outside school. In the train on the way (where
> they all first met) she says she's tried a few spells and they all
> worked for her.....
> .... I wonder how come *she* wasn't warned off.... and why there is no
> warning in the letter telling students something to the effect of.....
> "Do NOT try the spells in your new books at home!"... or similar ??
I think the clue to this is (pardon me if I've got this wrong) is that
it wasn't so much the first time this happened to Harry, it's the only
time that this happened to Harry, or indeed to anyone else.
And in this one instance, Harry was *not* using magic, it was Dobby.
Something else was going on, since Fudge was very offhand about the
whole incident, when he was later quizzed about the letter by Harry.
It might just have been a typical ministry cock-up, (the Improper Use
of Magic Office made a dog's bollocks of the Moody incident, and they
have a bad record over catching unregistered Animagi), or maybe it is
an incompetent Mafalda Hopkirk. Or possibly she has her own agenda.
Tennant Stuart
--
____ ____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____
(_ _)( ___)( \( )( \( ) /__\ ( \( )(_ _) Greetings to family
)( )__) ) ( ) ( /(__)\ ) ( )( friends & neighbours
(__) (____)(_)\_)(_)\_)(__)(__)(_)\_) (__) @argonet.co.uk & MCR
Peter Murray
David Robin <d_p_...@fuse.net> wrote:
> We could suppose that the other sections cover things like use of
>magic in a magical household (presumably under supervision). It is
>funny that the original letters to new students does not prohibit
>"experimentation" prior to the start of the term. This may be an
>oversight.
Maybe, even with the books and a wand, it's just too difficult to
actually get a spell to work for this to be an issue. Hermione's
likely to persevere much longer than any other pupil (pre-pupil?)
would have done.
--
..Peter Murray http://www.table76.demon.co.uk/Hogwarts/index.html
Count: Must I do everything for you?
Knights: Uh-huh. Yup. Yes. -- [Blazing Dragons "Tournament Day"]
Toon
wrote:
> Seems doubtful. In CoS, the letter to Harry refers to the
>"Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery, 1875,
>Paragraph C), as well as section 13 of the International Confederation
>of Warlocks' Staute of Secrecy.
> We could suppose that the other sections cover things like use of
>magic in a magical household (presumably under supervision). It is
>funny that the original letters to new students does not prohibit
>"experimentation" prior to the start of the term. This may be an
>oversight.
> While I doubt it is an issue only for Harry--remember we only
>have his viewpoint (perhaps Hermione *did* get a letter and didn't
>mentionit)--it is the case that the MOM is keeping a particular eye on
>Harry and that there are a number of good reasons to do so.
>
>David
Yeah, she wouldn't be bragging about getting one of those.
Richard Eney
Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> wrote:
<snips>
>> The first time Harry used magic outside Hogwarts, he was jumped on by
>> the MoM.
>> deliberate use of magic outside school. In the train on the way
>I think the clue to this is (pardon me if I've got this wrong) is that
>it wasn't so much the first time this happened to Harry, it's the only
>time that this happened to Harry, or indeed to anyone else.
>And in this one instance, Harry was *not* using magic, it was Dobby.
>Something else was going on, since Fudge was very offhand about the
>whole incident, when he was later quizzed about the letter by Harry.
>
>It might just have been a typical ministry cock-up, (the Improper Use
>of Magic Office made a dog's bollocks of the Moody incident, and they
>have a bad record over catching unregistered Animagi), or maybe it is
>an incompetent Mafalda Hopkirk. Or possibly she has her own agenda.
From the outside, I'd say it was because JKR needed some way to get Harry
in trouble.
In the context of the story, I lean toward the idea that Mafalda Hopkirk
has a hidden agenda, also to get Harry in trouble. With that name, she's
almost certainly a former Slytherin, and we know what they're like...
(When, oh when, do we get a decent younger Slytherin? Where is the one
that is quietly studying and avoiding Malfoy's gang?)
=Tamar
Jonathan Buzzard
OrionCA <ori...@earthlink.net> writes:
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:49:06 +0100, jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan
>
>>In article <Xns928C913...@139.134.5.33>,
>> Skyrider <od...@cyberscriber.com> writes:
>>
>>[SNIP]
>>>
>>> The prohibition seemsd to apply more to Harry than to the other 'magical
>>> children'. Case in point being Harry's visit to the Weasleys when the twins
>>> were smashing the table in the garden!
>>
>>Read the book again, that is Bill and Charlie, both fully qualified
>>wizards.
>>
>
> bedroom. I doubt they were using muggle firecrackers.
Yes, and is blowing things up in their bedroom, bashing tables together?
I think not. Further more the use of an enchanted object is not the
same as casting a spell. We learn that in what the Weasleys say about
the Ford Anglia in CoS.
Oh yes and just to round it all up, the twins had passed their OWL's buy
the time they are blowing things up in their bedroom which may well just
put them on the right side of the law. They do at least have qualifications
in magic.
>
> This goes along with a thought I've had ever since reading the first
> book. Up until the rise of Voldemort there may not have been really a
> lot of enforcement of the magical regulations and not so many of them.
> Voldemort started a reign of terror against both Wizards and Muggles
> and the MoM was frantic to clean up the messes and prevent the Muggles
> from realizing what was going on. They enacted a whole new set of
> regulations and beefed up the Aurors so they could start enforcing
> them.
Except Harry was done under a piece of legislation dating back to 1875.
One can presume *during* Voldemorts reign of terror not much enforcement
was done however.
Aris Katsaris
"Rain Forests" <within_th...@NOSPAM123india.com> wrote in message
news:am7b9i$ajm$2...@news.brutele.be...
>
> I imagine that all muggle born get the compagny of a wizzard specially sent
> for that purpose : to show where to go to buy books, etc. and how to go to
> the platform - in the case of Harry, Hagrid just forgot to tell him...
"I shouldn't have *not* told you that!" :-)
Aris Katsaris
Simon.
wrote:
No, it was Bill and (forgotten) the other one who had already left
Hogwarts who were mucking about with the tables.
Simon.
(Charlie - that's him ! )
>
>I think the strength of prohibition on Harry was for a puspose we don't yet
>know.
Please put out the fire to e-mail me.
Simon.
Buzzard) wrote:
>In article <7a2eou8opliboskmm...@4ax.com>,
> Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> writes:
>
>[SNIP]
>>
>> but......... Hermione was doing 'proper magic'.... why no mention of
>> the prohibition on the page outlining the book list for example?
>
>Because the magical community just presume these are given. Look how
>Harry was left not knowing how to get to platform 9.75 for example.
That doesn't have quite the same ring to it does it - platform 9.75 !!
9 & 3/4 sounds SO much nicer !!!
*grin*
Simon.
>
>
>JAB.
Tennant Stuart
dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney) wrote:
> In article <na.7c49f94b77...@argonet.co.uk>,
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> wrote:
>>> The first time Harry used magic outside Hogwarts, he was jumped on
>>> by the MoM. We have discussed this awhile.... but nobody brought up
>>> Hermione's deliberate use of magic outside school.
>> I think the clue to this is (pardon me if I've got this wrong) is that
>> it wasn't so much the first time this happened to Harry, it's the only
>> time that this happened to Harry, or indeed to anyone else. And in this
>> one instance, Harry was *not* using magic, it was Dobby. Something else
>> was going on, since Fudge was very offhand about the whole incident,
>> when he was later quizzed about the letter by Harry.
>> It might just have been a typical ministry cock-up, (the Improper Use
>> of Magic Office made a dog's bollocks of the Moody incident, and they
>> have a bad record over catching unregistered Animagi), or maybe it is
>> an incompetent Mafalda Hopkirk. Or possibly she has her own agenda.
> From the outside, I'd say it was because JKR needed some way to get
> Harry in trouble. In the context of the story, I lean toward the idea
> that Mafalda Hopkirk has a hidden agenda, also to get Harry in trouble.
Me2
> With that name, she's almost certainly a former Slytherin, and we know
> what they're like...
Eek
> (When, oh when, do we get a decent younger Slytherin? Where is the one
> that is quietly studying and avoiding Malfoy's gang?)
Well, Malcolm Baddock, Tracey Davis, Queenie Greengrass, Graham Pritchard
and Blaise Zabini don't seem to cause any trouble - in fact Blaise is so
quiet we don't know if he is a boy or she is a girl.
And although Hermione had a bust-up with Millicent Bulstrode in Duelling
Club, we don't know who started it, we haven't heard that she hangs around
with Malfoy's gang, and also she is a cat person...
Tennant
Tennant Stuart
<ori...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Hermione received her letter around the same time as Harry; perhaps a
> bit earlier or later (we don't know exactly when her birthday is.)
Hermione's birthday is September 19th.
> She probably had her nose pressed in her schoolbooks from the moment
> she picked them up on Diagon Alley to when she boarded the train.
She did. Even before we knew what her name was, she'd announced that she
had learnt all of her course books by heart, and then once she had been
introduced she added that she'd bought a few extra books for background
reading, and Harry was in three of them. OTOH, she didn't research which
was the best house to go into, she'd been asking around, so I guess she
must have interrogated everybody she met in Diagon Alley, as well as the
unknown person who came to see her parents - my guess is McGonagall.
harrys_girl
know about harry and the wizarding world and that is why harry got the
letter. Hermione didnt(presumably)because her parents knew about her
being a witch and no 'muggles' were around. The same goes for the
train.
Tennant Stuart
beatle_...@yahoo.com (harrys_girl) wrote:
Yes, but you'd think that if the IUoMO could remotely detect unknowing
Muggles in the house, then they'd notice a house-elf there, even if it
was not possible to tell who cast the spell.
Simon.
wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 04:12:37 GMT, Skyrider <od...@cyberscriber.com>
No one seems to mention the World cup where two young girls were
playing on toy broomsticks or the two year old engorging a slug ...
Kids will be kids !!
Simon.
Troels Forchhammer
>
> We could suppose that the other sections cover things like use of
> magic in a magical household (presumably under supervision). It is
> funny that the original letters to new students does not prohibit
> "experimentation" prior to the start of the term. This may be an
> oversight.
And how come that Hermione apparently didn't get any reprimands
for the spells she had tried out (and which actually worked) prior
to starting at Hogwarts?
> While I doubt it is an issue only for Harry--remember we only
> have his viewpoint (perhaps Hermione *did* get a letter and didn't
> mentionit)--it is the case that the MOM is keeping a particular eye on
> Harry and that there are a number of good reasons to do so.
I have long suspected that muggle-born students _must_ get an
accompanying letter explaining things to them - how else could
they even get their school stuff or get on the train?
Full-bloods or half-bloods are supposed to know beforehand.
This was overlooked for Harry because he was not muggle-born.
(Perhaps the quill sets a mark next to the name if the new-born
is muggle-born).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
A Thaum is the basic unit of magical strength. It has been
universally established as the amount of magic needed to
create one small white pigeon or three normal sized billiard
balls.
-- (Terry Pratchett, The Light Fantastic)
Jonathan Buzzard
Simon. <sim...@FIREsjbwool.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
[SNIP]
>
> No one seems to mention the World cup where two young girls were
> playing on toy broomsticks or the two year old engorging a slug ...
The two young girls where using enchanted objects, and this is not
the same as doing magic. This was made very clear in CoS by the
Weasleys.
As to the toddler, fits in with enforcement being impossible in
magical households. Provided it does not attact the attention of
Muggles then it is a matter for parents to deal with.
I also think that Ron has mentioned that there are exceptions,
that allow underage wizards to use magic.
Simon.
Buzzard) wrote:
>In article <lopuoukm4rb45l4uc...@4ax.com>,
> Simon. <sim...@FIREsjbwool.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>[SNIP]
>>
>> No one seems to mention the World cup where two young girls were
>> playing on toy broomsticks or the two year old engorging a slug ...
>
>The two young girls where using enchanted objects, and this is not
>the same as doing magic. This was made very clear in CoS by the
>Weasleys.
>
>As to the toddler, fits in with enforcement being impossible in
>magical households. Provided it does not attact the attention of
>Muggles then it is a matter for parents to deal with.
>
>I also think that Ron has mentioned that there are exceptions,
>that allow underage wizards to use magic.
>
>JAB.
Agreed with you here. However since the MoM were having problems
keeping the adults under control I think that their children will get
bad habits from them and start performing magic even against set rules
from the MoM
Just a thought !
Simon
Sky Rider
>[SNIP]
>> No one seems to mention the World cup where two young girls were
>> playing on toy broomsticks or the two year old engorging a slug ...
>The two young girls where using enchanted objects, and this is not
>the same as doing magic. This was made very clear in CoS by the
>Weasleys.
>As to the toddler, fits in with enforcement being impossible in
>magical households. Provided it does not attact the attention of
>Muggles then it is a matter for parents to deal with.
>I also think that Ron has mentioned that there are exceptions,
>that allow underage wizards to use magic.
but..... the 'wizard' doing the magic wasn't Harry - it was a house
elf! Harry just happened to be in the area where magic was carried
out.
If Voldemort had arrived and attacked the Dursleys by magic, would
Harry still have got the letter?? From the arguments we've seen the
answer would be yes.... which makes no sense!
Shawn Pyle Crowell
Reply below,
Sky Rider wrote:
(SNIP)
> If Voldemort had arrived and attacked the Dursleys by magic, would
> Harry still have got the letter?? From the arguments we've seen the
> answer would be yes.... which makes no sense!
> --
> SkyRider
Here's my theory:
Ministry of Magic know where Muggle-raised children live. Perhaps they
enchant those houses to somehow alert the ministry when magic in performed
on the premises. They would assume it's the young witch or wizard since
the rest of the house is Muggle. So if it's a house elf or Harry or
You-Know-Who, himself performing magic at 4 Privot Drive, it would 'ring'
an alarm for Harry's residence and he, Harry, would get the heat for it.
For those wizarding families, the rules are, I imagine, a bit more leniant
because they have wizard/witches to supervise and correct any problems.
Plus wizarding homes are generally out of the way and wouldn't attract
muggle attention whereas muggle-raised kids live amongst muggles. It
would be the parents' responsibility to ensure the 'no usage of magic' or
they could allow them and then the parents would take the heat from the
Ministry.
It's all theory, of course, but it would explain how Harry got blamed for
Dobby's magic.
Also, at the Burrow, small exploding noises came from Fred and George's
room on a regular basis. He discover in GoF what they were doing. You
can't tell me that their line of products was made without the use of
magic.
That's my 2 cents....where's my change?
Shawn
Sky Rider
<spylec...@sympatico.ca> row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro,
wrote this note :
>--SPOILERS CONTAINED, CAUTION --
>Reply below,
>Sky Rider wrote:
(SNIP)
>> If Voldemort had arrived and attacked the Dursleys by magic, would
>> Harry still have got the letter?? From the arguments we've seen the
>> answer would be yes.... which makes no sense!
>Here's my theory:
>Ministry of Magic know where Muggle-raised children live. Perhaps they
>enchant those houses to somehow alert the ministry when magic in performed
>on the premises. They would assume it's the young witch or wizard since
>the rest of the house is Muggle. So if it's a house elf or Harry or
>You-Know-Who, himself performing magic at 4 Privot Drive, it would 'ring'
>an alarm for Harry's residence and he, Harry, would get the heat for it.
>For those wizarding families, the rules are, I imagine, a bit more leniant
>because they have wizard/witches to supervise and correct any problems.
>Plus wizarding homes are generally out of the way and wouldn't attract
>muggle attention whereas muggle-raised kids live amongst muggles. It
>would be the parents' responsibility to ensure the 'no usage of magic' or
>they could allow them and then the parents would take the heat from the
>Ministry.
>It's all theory, of course, but it would explain how Harry got blamed for
>Dobby's magic.
>Also, at the Burrow, small exploding noises came from Fred and George's
>room on a regular basis. He discover in GoF what they were doing. You
>can't tell me that their line of products was made without the use of
>magic.
>That's my 2 cents....where's my change?
So.. Voldemort arrives at Privet Close forces the door and begins to
lay about him left and right..... blasting all and sundry.... Dursleys
and Potters alike.... by use of Magic....
.... and in the middle of it all an owl arrives from the Ministry
telling Harry he is about to be expelled..... !!
Errr... ????
Shawn Pyle Crowell
Ministry does Official deny it (Cornelius Fudge) -- Students will protect
themselves but will be accountable to provide either information on an attack
or else be accountable as to their improper use of Magic.
Shawn
Sky Rider
>> >Reply below,
>> >Sky Rider wrote:
>> (SNIP)
>> Errr... ????
>Obviously, now that it is known Voldemort is on the loose -- although the
>Ministry does Official deny it (Cornelius Fudge) -- Students will protect
>themselves but will be accountable to provide either information on an attack
>or else be accountable as to their improper use of Magic.
Which doesn't explain how Hermione got away with doing magic willy
nilly - around Muggles!! - with no censure whatever, as far as we
know, prior to even arriving in Hogwarts!!
Shawn Pyle Crowell
> (SNIP)
>
>
> Which doesn't explain how Hermione got away with doing magic willy
> nilly - around Muggles!! - with no censure whatever, as far as we
> know, prior to even arriving in Hogwarts!!
> --
> SkyRider
>
Unless the Ministry only gets the names of Students. In which case Hermione
wasn't yet monitored if she were to practice BEFORE actually becoming a student -
arrival.
Perhaps the MoM uses the attendance lists as a way of checking?
And did she do magic willy nilly, or did she 'practice' magic?
(ie. study and memorization without application.)
It isn't stated in the books. Maybe muggle-borns are given some introductory
remedial before entering so they aren't completely at a loss (and Harry got
missed because he is from a wizarding family).
We simply do not know.
Shawn
Sky Rider
<snip>
>> Which doesn't explain how Hermione got away with doing magic willy
>> nilly - around Muggles!! - with no censure whatever, as far as we
>> know, prior to even arriving in Hogwarts!!
>Unless the Ministry only gets the names of Students. In which case Hermione
>wasn't yet monitored if she were to practice BEFORE actually becoming a student -
>arrival.
>Perhaps the MoM uses the attendance lists as a way of checking?
>And did she do magic willy nilly, or did she 'practice' magic?
>(ie. study and memorization without application.)
>It isn't stated in the books. Maybe muggle-borns are given some introductory
>remedial before entering so they aren't completely at a loss (and Harry got
>missed because he is from a wizarding family).
She said she'd been practicing spells and they'd all worked for her...
i.e. "I've tried a few simple spells just for practice and it's all
worked for me." <g>
>We simply do not know.
--
SkyRider
**********
Visit the Online Dictionary of Playground Slang
and leave your favourites-: http://www.odps.cyberscriber.com
Aug/Sep. 2002 Update:
1500 extra words, reminiscences, poems and song lyrics added!
**********
harrys_girl
> In article <fbe18fb7.0209...@posting.google.com>,
> beatle_...@yahoo.com (harrys_girl) wrote:
>
> > I could just be that there were pure muggles in the house that didnt
> > know about harry and the wizarding world and that is why harry got the
> > letter. Hermione didnt(presumably)because her parents knew about her
> > being a witch and no 'muggles' were around. The same goes for the
> > train.
>
> Yes, but you'd think that if the IUoMO could remotely detect unknowing
> Muggles in the house, then they'd notice a house-elf there, even if it
> was not possible to tell who cast the spell.
>
>
> Tennant
Ok.But what if harrys house was registered as a house that contained 3
muggles and one underage wizard. It would of then been obvious that
their was magical activity WITH other muggles around. Anyway, an
invisable ministry wizard could have apparated and seen that their
were muggles present that were not totaly familar with magic.
Troels Forchhammer
Comments inline. I've trimmed a few places without notice.
Sky Rider wrote:
>
> Shawn Pyle Crowell wrote this note :
>>
>> Sky Rider wrote:
>>>
>>> Shawn Pyle Crowell wrote this note :
>>>>
>>>> Sky Rider wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> --SPOILERS CONTAINED, CAUTION --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If Voldemort had arrived and attacked the Dursleys by
>>>>> magic, would Harry still have got the letter??
>>>>> From the arguments we've seen the answer would be yes ....
>>>>> which makes no sense!
>>>>
>>>> Here's my theory:
<snipped> theory of monitoring underage wizards living with
wizards.
>>>> It's all theory, of course, but it would explain how Harry
>>>> got blamed for Dobby's magic.
>>>>
>>>> Also, at the Burrow, small exploding noises came from Fred
>>>> and George's room on a regular basis. He discover in GoF
>>>> what they were doing. You can't tell me that their line of
>>>> products was made without the use of magic.
>>>
>>> So.. Voldemort arrives at Privet Close forces the door and
>>> begins to lay about him left and right..... blasting all and
>>> sundry.... Dursleys and Potters alike.... by use of Magic....
>>> .... and in the middle of it all an owl arrives from the
>>> Ministry telling Harry he is about to be expelled..... !!
It is evident from the Dobby incident in CoS that the Ministry
is capable of detecting exactly which spell is being used, but
not the source - that much is clear.
If Voldemort suddenly turned up and started to lay about with
heavy spell artillery :) I guess that more than an owl would
come in answer. If he used serious dark magic it might even be
an auror or two that turned up.
If, on the other hand, he just started by using some rather
light-weight spells to temporarily control Harry and the
Dursleys (e.g. full Body-Binds), then he may have a chance of
getting away with it with no more response than an owl to Harry.
>> Obviously, now that it is known Voldemort is on the loose --
>> although the Ministry does Official deny it (Cornelius Fudge)
>> -- Students will protect themselves but will be accountable
>> to provide either information on an attack or else be
>> accountable as to their improper use of Magic.
Probably the vigilance will be increased - especially with
regards to high risk victims like Harry.
> Which doesn't explain how Hermione got away with doing magic
> willy nilly - around Muggles!! - with no censure whatever, as
> far as we know, prior to even arriving in Hogwarts!!
The only reasonable assumption that I can see, which is also
consistent with the books, is that the monitoring doesn't begin
until the student starts school. A little unimaginative,
perhaps, but to make the procedures allow for the kind of
Hermione would probably be vast overkill in the large majority
of cases, and thus this situation is conveniently overlooked.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
They both savoured the strange warm glow of being much more
ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of
ordinary things.
-- Discworld scientists at work (Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites)
Tennant Stuart
Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 19:36:40 -0700, Shawn Pyle Crowell
> <spylec...@sympatico.ca> row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro,
> wrote this note :
>>>>> If Voldemort had arrived and attacked the Dursleys by magic, would
>>> Errr... ????
Exactly, which is why I'm sure that Mafalda's letter was either a
cock-up, or something underhand was going on.
Toon
<spylec...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Reply Below...
>
>> (SNIP)
>>
>>
>> Which doesn't explain how Hermione got away with doing magic willy
>> nilly - around Muggles!! - with no censure whatever, as far as we
>> know, prior to even arriving in Hogwarts!!
>> --
>> SkyRider
Or maybe Hermione got caught, and the MOM made up the new rule that
school year.
Sky Rider
rowed the boat - then wro, wro, wrote this note :
><spylec...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
(SNIP)
>>> Which doesn't explain how Hermione got away with doing magic willy
>>> nilly - around Muggles!! - with no censure whatever, as far as we
>>> know, prior to even arriving in Hogwarts!!
> Or maybe Hermione got caught, and the MOM made up the new rule that
>school year.
But how would she have know she wasn't to do it? From what we've seen
of Harry's letter, and using it as a rule, it would appear none of the
kids were told. And imposing a rule on students without informing them
seems a bit iffy too! :)
--
SkyRider
**********
Visit the Online Dictionary of Playground Slang
and leave your favourites-: http://www.odps.cyberscriber.com
Aug/Sep. 2002 Update:
1500 extra words, reminiscences, poems and song lyrics added!
**********
Troels Forchhammer
>
>> Sky Rider wrote
>>>
>>> Which doesn't explain how Hermione got away with doing magic willy
>>> nilly - around Muggles!! - with no censure whatever, as far as we
>>> know, prior to even arriving in Hogwarts!!
>
> school year.
Doesn't the Weasley twins somewhere state that they _always_ hope
that they forget to give them the note about underage magic?
To me that comment sounds like they've been getting it every year
they've attended Hogwarts.
Simon.
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.fk> wrote:
>Toon wrote:
>>
>>> Sky Rider wrote
>>>>
>>>> Which doesn't explain how Hermione got away with doing magic willy
>>>> nilly - around Muggles!! - with no censure whatever, as far as we
>>>> know, prior to even arriving in Hogwarts!!
>>
>> Or maybe Hermione got caught, and the MOM made up the new rule that
>> school year.
>
>Doesn't the Weasley twins somewhere state that they _always_ hope
>that they forget to give them the note about underage magic?
>
>To me that comment sounds like they've been getting it every year
>they've attended Hogwarts.
Yes but note that the letter is given out at the end of the school
year, not at the end of the terms.
So the first years can get off scot free !
Troels Forchhammer
Ingenious ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
+++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe
And Reboot +++
-- (Terry Pratchett, Hogfather)
Simon.
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.fk> wrote:
>"Simon." wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:52:19 +0200, Troels Forchhammer
>> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.fk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Doesn't the Weasley twins somewhere state that they _always_ hope
>>> that they forget to give them the note about underage magic?
>>>
>>> To me that comment sounds like they've been getting it every year
>>> they've attended Hogwarts.
>>
>> Yes but note that the letter is given out at the end of the school
>> year, not at the end of the terms.
>>
>> So the first years can get off scot free !
>
>Ingenious ;-)
LOL ! Yea, I thought so too.
Tennant Stuart
beatle_...@yahoo.com (harrys_girl) wrote:
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<na.8ba4ee4b78...@argonet.co.uk>...
>> In article <fbe18fb7.0209...@posting.google.com>,
>> beatle_...@yahoo.com (harrys_girl) wrote:
>>> I could just be that there were pure muggles in the house that didnt
>>> know about harry and the wizarding world and that is why harry got the
>>> letter. Hermione didnt(presumably)because her parents knew about her
>>> being a witch and no 'muggles' were around. The same goes for the
>>> train.
>> Yes, but you'd think that if the IUoMO could remotely detect unknowing
>> Muggles in the house, then they'd notice a house-elf there, even if it
>> was not possible to tell who cast the spell.
> Ok.But what if harrys house was registered as a house that contained 3
> muggles and one underage wizard. It would of then been obvious that
> their was magical activity WITH other muggles around.
Well, if they can detect other muggles, they should detect a house-elf.
> Anyway, an invisable ministry wizard could have apparated and seen that
> their were muggles present that were not totaly familar with magic.
An invisible ministry wizard could have apparated in and seen a house-elf.
Kevin Karpenske
>> Anyway, an invisable ministry wizard could have apparated and seen
>> that their were muggles present that were not totaly familar with
>> magic.
>
> An invisible ministry wizard could have apparated in and seen a
> house-elf.
Maybe part of the ancient magic protecting the Dursleys' house prevents
Apparation, like Hogwarts. :)
This wouldn't restrict Dobby from apparating to/from the Dursleys' house,
of course, as we already know that he can apparate to/from/within Hogwarts.
--
Kevin Karpenske
krk at firefox dot com
"Question your answers;
the truth has no anger." --Collective Soul
Shawn Pyle Crowell
Hogwarts. Is it expressly or is it implicitly shown? I can not recall his
apparating at Hogwarts. He seemed to suddenly be places but an Elf's agility
and ability to move unnoticed would not be construed as apparation. Have I
overlooked a point in the books?
Shawn
Kevin Karpenske
news:3D954CAC...@sympatico.ca:
> I wonder where we have learned that Dobby can apparate within/to/from
> Hogwarts. Is it expressly or is it implicitly shown? I can not
> recall his apparating at Hogwarts. He seemed to suddenly be places
> but an Elf's agility and ability to move unnoticed would not be
> construed as apparation. Have I overlooked a point in the books?
In CoS, after Dobby blasts Lucius Malfoy down the stairs in defense of
Harry, he bids Harry good bye and simply disappears with a pop.
Apparation. :)
Tennant Stuart
Kevin Karpenske <s...@my.sig> wrote:
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in
> news:na.ccb10f4b7c...@argonet.co.uk:
>>> Anyway, an invisable ministry wizard could have apparated and seen
>>> that their were muggles present that were not totaly familar with
>>> magic.
>> An invisible ministry wizard could have apparated in and seen a
>> house-elf.
> Maybe part of the ancient magic protecting the Dursleys' house prevents
> Apparation, like Hogwarts. This wouldn't restrict Dobby from apparating
> to/from the Dursleys' house, of course, as we already know that he can
> apparate to/from/within Hogwarts.
Could be. I still reckon there's something suspicious about that letter.
Toon
>Shawn Pyle Crowell <spylec...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
>news:3D954CAC...@sympatico.ca:
>
>> I wonder where we have learned that Dobby can apparate within/to/from
>> Hogwarts. Is it expressly or is it implicitly shown? I can not
>> recall his apparating at Hogwarts. He seemed to suddenly be places
>> but an Elf's agility and ability to move unnoticed would not be
>> construed as apparation. Have I overlooked a point in the books?
>
>In CoS, after Dobby blasts Lucius Malfoy down the stairs in defense of
>Harry, he bids Harry good bye and simply disappears with a pop.
>
>Apparation. :)
People don't pop when they apparate. Must be an elfin version, that
slips through Hogwarts defenses.
Kevin Karpenske
4ax.com:
>>> I wonder where we have learned that Dobby can apparate within/to/from
>>> Hogwarts. Is it expressly or is it implicitly shown? I can not
>>> recall his apparating at Hogwarts. He seemed to suddenly be places
>>> but an Elf's agility and ability to move unnoticed would not be
>>> construed as apparation. Have I overlooked a point in the books?
>>
>>In CoS, after Dobby blasts Lucius Malfoy down the stairs in defense of
>>Harry, he bids Harry good bye and simply disappears with a pop.
>>
>>Apparation. :)
>
> People don't pop when they apparate. Must be an elfin version, that
> slips through Hogwarts defenses.
Okay, actually, it was a "loud crack."
The point is that Dobby isn't bound by the Hogwarts restriction.
Ksnidget
<s...@my.sig> writes:
>Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote in news:nelfpuo634tlr8mk7fn5476ml177a3o44b@
>4ax.com:
>
>>>> I wonder where we have learned that Dobby can apparate within/to/from
>>>> Hogwarts. Is it expressly or is it implicitly shown? I can not
>>>> recall his apparating at Hogwarts. He seemed to suddenly be places
>>>> but an Elf's agility and ability to move unnoticed would not be
>>>> construed as apparation. Have I overlooked a point in the books?
>>>
>>>In CoS, after Dobby blasts Lucius Malfoy down the stairs in defense of
>>>Harry, he bids Harry good bye and simply disappears with a pop.
>>>
>>>Apparation. :)
>>
>> People don't pop when they apparate. Must be an elfin version, that
>> slips through Hogwarts defenses.
>
>Okay, actually, it was a "loud crack."
>
>The point is that Dobby isn't bound by the Hogwarts restriction.
We know that elves are magical, but we don't know
that their magic is the same as humans.
Apparation is what human use, but the magic used
by elves may be quite different.
I suspect that the popping in and out thing is part of
how they do their job (keep everything clean without
being seen)
<GOF SPOILER>
I mean the castle has what like hundreds of elves that
keep the place clean and Hermione never saw one, so
they have to be good at the getting in and out of rooms
without using the hallways. How many secret passages
can the castle have after all?
I suspect that elves move from place to place by a different
means than apparation and to set up the anti-apperation
spells so they also prevent elf-transit that would put a
serious crimp the the elves to do their work in the castle.
K.
K.
Sky Rider
rowed the boat - then wro, wro, wrote this note :
How do you know that?? We've never been told that have... but we'd not
been told they *don't* either!
>Must be an elfin version, that slips through Hogwarts defenses.
Kevin Karpenske
news:20020930071255...@mb-cn.aol.com:
>>> People don't pop when they apparate. Must be an elfin version, that
>>> slips through Hogwarts defenses.
>>
>> Okay, actually, it was a "loud crack."
>>
>> The point is that Dobby isn't bound by the Hogwarts restriction.
>
> We know that elves are magical, but we don't know
> that their magic is the same as humans.
>
> Apparation is what human use, but the magic used
> by elves may be quite different.
>
> I suspect that the popping in and out thing is part of
> how they do their job (keep everything clean without
> being seen)
(snip)
I don't think I'll buy that.
House-elves are supposed to blend in... disappear... They weren't seen
in all of Harry's first three years.
It'd be waking up students in the middle of the night if every time they
arrived to stoke the fires there was a loud "CRACK!" in the Common Room.
Besides, Dobby has merely vanished by some other means (magical or not)
in other instances.
Harry would have been hearing loud cracks around every corner if this
were the case. Then again, as per another thread involving "bangs,"
perhaps this is the key to it all... :) </tongue in cheek>
In any case, you're missing the point of the thread... My original
speculation was that the ancient magic on the Dursleys' house is perhaps
a magical protection that, among other things, prevents apparation -
normal wizards cannot penetrate it (like at Hogwarts), but Dobby, a
House-elf, certainly can.
Kevin Karpenske
news:an9vqk$o07$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk:
(snip)
> Granted, it doesn't specifically state that he disapparated from the
> Dursley's house (as we follow Harry through the grate), he might've
> gone out into the street or something to do it, but my general
> impression is that he did.. Exactly what my point is though, I don't
> know.
Well spotted, in any case.
The question I then must ask, of course, is if such a protection could
be one-way. ;) That is, if you cannot Apparate *to* the house, but can
easily Disapparate *from* it... Maybe some sort of "targeting error,"
similar to making a location "unplottable," where there is no possible
destination for Apparation - but where, once you've arrived by some
other means, leaving is no big deal.
Yes, I know I'm stretching this - and no, I don't really think this is
the case. :)
There *is* a good point to be made, though... The more we see wizards
and/or House-elves moving in and out of the Dursleys' house, the more
items we can check off of the "possible ancient magic" list that is
supposedly protecting Harry while he is under the care of his aunt and
uncle.
What, for instance, would stop Voldemort from bribing, threatening, or
torturing someone in the Ministry to make them re-connect the
Dursleys' house to the Floo network, so that he can burst out in their
living room at any old time?
It does pose some interesting questions.
MARK JOHNSON
the spells on Hogwarts would not be able to counter them because no one
would know elf magic in Hogwarts except the house elves
"Toon" <to...@toon.com> wrote in message
news:nelfpuo634tlr8mk7...@4ax.com...
Tennant Stuart
<to...@toon.com> wrote:
>> Apparation. :)
In GoF-09, Ludo Bagman disapparated with a small pop, then he apparated
right next to Mr. Weasley with another pop. Then in GoF-11 Amos Diggory
vanished with a small pop.
On the other hand, Dobby vanished with a crack like a whip in CoS-02,
when he was terrified in CoS-10 he went with a loud crack, and Dobby
disappeared with a final loud crack in CoS-18.
There are other references to apparations where no sound effect is
given, but we don't know if that is because they were silent or the
sound was simply not mentioned. However, I can't find any explicit
reference to a silent apparation.
Tennant Stuart
Toon
>What, for instance, would stop Voldemort from bribing, threatening, or
>torturing someone in the Ministry to make them re-connect the
>Dursleys' house to the Floo network, so that he can burst out in their
>living room at any old time?
The ancient magic. Whatever spell was used, it prevents V from being
able to get at Harry there. And he's not stupid enough to attack
Harry at Hogwarts while Dumbledore is there. Look how he got rid of
him to steal the Stone. Only then did he have Quirrell go after
Harry, when Dumbles wasn't there to protect him.
Sky Rider
rowed the boat - then wro, wro, wrote this note :
>On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 20:08:30 GMT, Kevin Karpenske <s...@my.sig> wrote:
Pedantic little points:
(1) at the Quidditch match Dumbledore was at Hogwarts and Quirrell
went after Harry regardless.
(2) when the attempt was made on the PS, Quirrell didn't go after
Harry - Harry went after Quirrell!
Kevin Karpenske
news:12aipug0div0i3opq...@4ax.com:
>> What, for instance, would stop Voldemort from bribing, threatening,
>> or torturing someone in the Ministry to make them re-connect the
>> Dursleys' house to the Floo network, so that he can burst out in
>> their living room at any old time?
>
> The ancient magic. Whatever spell was used, it prevents V from being
> able to get at Harry there. And he's not stupid enough to attack
> Harry at Hogwarts while Dumbledore is there. Look how he got rid of
> him to steal the Stone. Only then did he have Quirrell go after
> Harry, when Dumbles wasn't there to protect him.
You've proven my point. We don't know what the ancient magic is. It's
just that - ancient magic.
The question was: what *about* the ancient magic prevents Voldemort from
using the Floo network - *that* is what poses interesting questions,
e.g.:
Does the magic only block Voldemort? If so, then why couldn't a Death
Eater get at Harry?
Does it block all Death Eaters? How? What does it base its judgment on?
Would Polyjuice Potion fool the magic?
Does it merely protect Harry from harm? How does it judge who will harm
him?
Arthur Weasley and three of his children penetrated the Dursley house
very easily. What if Voldemort put Arthur under the Imperius Curse?
Would he be able to use Arthur to get at Harry?
Like I said, many interesting questions.
Richard Eney
Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> I still reckon there's something suspicious about that letter.
Must be. IIRC, it's signed "Mafalda Hopkirk" - now there's a
Slytherin-style name! Not only does it have a bad-sounding first name
(if you have "bad" or "mal" in your name, you're a shoo-in for Slytherin),
the rest brings to mind 'Hopkirk (deceased). S'pose she's undead? :-)
=Tamar
Sky Rider
rowed the boat - then wro, wro, wrote this note :
<snip>
I used to love Randall & Hopkirk (deceased).. the original that is...
brilliant series :)
Tennant Stuart
dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney) wrote:
LOL, very good, Tamar. :)
Toon
>Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote in
>news:12aipug0div0i3opq...@4ax.com:
.
>
>You've proven my point. We don't know what the ancient magic is. It's
>just that - ancient magic.
>
>The question was: what *about* the ancient magic prevents Voldemort from
>using the Floo network - *that* is what poses interesting questions,
>e.g.:
>
>Does the magic only block Voldemort? If so, then why couldn't a Death
>Eater get at Harry?
>
>Does it block all Death Eaters? How? What does it base its judgment on?
>
>Would Polyjuice Potion fool the magic?
>
>Does it merely protect Harry from harm? How does it judge who will harm
>him?
>
>Arthur Weasley and three of his children penetrated the Dursley house
>very easily. What if Voldemort put Arthur under the Imperius Curse?
>Would he be able to use Arthur to get at Harry?
>
>Like I said, many interesting questions.
I think magic can detect intention, and other magic. So anybody
intending harm would be blocked. Anyone under control would be
detected and blocked. Arthur might get in, but his magic would fail.
Jonathan Buzzard
Toon <to...@toon.com> writes:
[SNIP]
>>
>>Arthur Weasley and three of his children penetrated the Dursley house
>>very easily. What if Voldemort put Arthur under the Imperius Curse?
>>Would he be able to use Arthur to get at Harry?
>>
>>Like I said, many interesting questions.
> I think magic can detect intention, and other magic. So anybody
> intending harm would be blocked. Anyone under control would be
> detected and blocked. Arthur might get in, but his magic would fail.
Arthur Weasley did not try and use any magic on Harry though. The
Curse that failed was doomed the instant Voldemort killed Lilly
Potter. However until the curse struck Harry Voldermort was fine
being in the same room. As he was through out much of Philosophers
Stone, and again in the grave yard.
Clearly the protection is on Harry himself.
JAB.
--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jona...@buzzard.org.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44(0)1661-832195
Kevin Karpenske
news:j6jena...@192.168.42.254:
> In article <6qukpugu02k0ek06f...@4ax.com>,
> Toon <to...@toon.com> writes:
>
> [SNIP]
>>>Arthur Weasley and three of his children penetrated the Dursley house
>>>very easily. What if Voldemort put Arthur under the Imperius Curse?
>>>Would he be able to use Arthur to get at Harry?
>>>
>>>Like I said, many interesting questions.
>>
>> I think magic can detect intention, and other magic. So anybody
>> intending harm would be blocked. Anyone under control would be
>> detected and blocked. Arthur might get in, but his magic would fail.
>
> Arthur Weasley did not try and use any magic on Harry though. The
> Curse that failed was doomed the instant Voldemort killed Lilly
> Potter. However until the curse struck Harry Voldermort was fine
> being in the same room. As he was through out much of Philosophers
> Stone, and again in the grave yard.
>
> Clearly the protection is on Harry himself.
We were referring to the "ancient magic" bit, spoken of by Voldemort
himself:
-quote:GoF-
"But how to get at Harry Potter? For he has been better protected than I
think even he knows, protected in ways devised by Dumbledore long ago,
when it fell to him to arrange the boy's future. Dumbledore invoked an
ancient magic, to ensure the boy's protection as long as he is in his
relations' care. Not even I can touch him there..."
-/quote-
This is a magic that Dumbledore explicitly brought about, that has
something to do with 4 Privet Drive... Of course, we have no idea what
it is, which is why I keep saying, "Questions, questions, questions." :)
Jonathan Buzzard
Yes but just like the protection tha Lilly gave Harry, the ancient
magic would appear to be on Harry himself, but unlike Lillys protection
is only active when under the care of the Dursleys.
Bard Tison
> > Clearly the protection is on Harry himself.
>
> We were referring to the "ancient magic" bit, spoken of by Voldemort
> himself:
>
> -quote:GoF-
> "But how to get at Harry Potter? For he has been better protected than I
> think even he knows, protected in ways devised by Dumbledore long ago,
> when it fell to him to arrange the boy's future. Dumbledore invoked an
> ancient magic, to ensure the boy's protection as long as he is in his
> relations' care. Not even I can touch him there..."
> -/quote-
>
> This is a magic that Dumbledore explicitly brought about, that has
> something to do with 4 Privet Drive... Of course, we have no idea what
> it is, which is why I keep saying, "Questions, questions, questions." :)
Your own citation shows that the the protective magic is for Harry in
the care of the Dursleys (presumably also when he went to his
pre-Hogwarts school), not specifically regarding 4 Privet Drive.
My speculation is that the Dursleys insisted in the lack of magic so
intently
that their belief itself was significant enough to squash any sort of
magic attempted around there. Harry's few fluke magical
manifestations were just
quirks that burst out because Harry was so innately magically
inclined.
Now how Dobby did his thing, I'll never know....
Kevin Karpenske
news:6f20f325.02100...@posting.google.com:
(snip)
>> This is a magic that Dumbledore explicitly brought about, that has
>> something to do with 4 Privet Drive... Of course, we have no idea
>> what it is, which is why I keep saying, "Questions, questions,
>> questions." :)
>
> Your own citation shows that the the protective magic is for Harry in
> the care of the Dursleys (presumably also when he went to his
> pre-Hogwarts school), not specifically regarding 4 Privet Drive.
>
> My speculation is that the Dursleys insisted in the lack of magic so
> intently that their belief itself was significant enough to squash any
> sort of magic attempted around there. Harry's few fluke magical
> manifestations were just quirks that burst out because Harry was so
> innately magically inclined.
Arthur Weasley did some heavy-duty magic in the Dursleys' living room
(blasting ornaments out of Vernon's hand, dis-engorging Dudley's tongue,
repairing the electric fire, and ultimately Disapparating) - and he
doesn't appear any more "magically inclined" than the next Ministry
wizard.
Anyway, as for 4 Privet Drive... My opinion is largely based on
Voldemort having stated:
"Not even I can touch him there..."
The word "there" struck me as meaning a specific place, rather than just
"in the general vicinity of his relations." I do see how your opinion
may differ, of course - this is just the way I've always read it, and we
really don't have any more to go on at this point.
<tongue in="cheek">
Harry's relations really "care" about him when they're away from the
house - the only reason they "care" about him when he's at home is
because they're afraid he'll blow it up.
I think Voldemort would have done better to choose a word other than
"care." :)
"Dumbledore invoked an acient magic, to ensure the boy's protection as
long as his relations are being forced to put up with him..."
</tongue>
Kevin Karpenske
64.154.60.171:
> Harry's relations really "care" about him when they're away from the
"don't really."
Two seconds after I sent it. Sigh.
Diamond Dove
"Sky Rider" <OD...@cyberscriber.com> wrote in message
news:anakpu06do99e4iiv...@4ax.com...
> On 1 Oct 2002 20:28:41 GMT, dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney) row, row,
> rowed the boat - then wro, wro, wrote this note :
> >In article <na.5ecb164b7c...@argonet.co.uk>,
> >Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> I still reckon there's something suspicious about that letter.
>
> >Must be. IIRC, it's signed "Mafalda Hopkirk" - now there's a
> >Slytherin-style name! Not only does it have a bad-sounding first name
> >(if you have "bad" or "mal" in your name, you're a shoo-in for
Slytherin),
> >the rest brings to mind 'Hopkirk (deceased). S'pose she's undead? :-)
>
> I used to love Randall & Hopkirk (deceased).. the original that is...
> brilliant series :)
I never saw the original series, but I found the Reeves/Mortimer series very
entertaining, if only to laugh at the acting...
DD
*-*
Tennant Stuart
Phaedra <phaedr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Ghosts, which inhabite Hogsworth, actually do the silent apparate,
> but then, that is also their nature.
Well, not all of them. In PS-07 there was a pop, and Peeves appeared.
Tennant
Sky Rider
<ten...@argonet.co.uk> row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro,
wrote this note :
>> The Ghosts, which inhabite Hogsworth, actually do the silent apparate,
>> but then, that is also their nature.
>Well, not all of them. In PS-07 there was a pop, and Peeves appeared.
err... but Peeves isn't a ghost!! :)
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Kevin Karpenske <s...@my.sig> wrote:
>>
>> The question was: what *about* the ancient magic prevents
>> Voldemort from using the Floo network - *that* is what poses
>> interesting questions, e.g.:
>>
>> Does the magic only block Voldemort? If so, then why couldn't
>> a Death Eater get at Harry?
>>
>> Does it block all Death Eaters? How? What does it base its
>> judgment on?
>>
>> Would Polyjuice Potion fool the magic?
>>
>> Does it merely protect Harry from harm? How does it judge who
>> will harm him?
>>
>> Arthur Weasley and three of his children penetrated the Dursley
>> house very easily. What if Voldemort put Arthur under the Imperius
>> Curse? Would he be able to use Arthur to get at Harry?
>>
>> Like I said, many interesting questions.
>
> I think magic can detect intention, and other magic. So anybody
> intending harm would be blocked. Anyone under control would be
> detected and blocked. Arthur might get in, but his magic would
> fail.
It is clear that the exact spell used is detectable, but the
intention with which it is cast?
Perhaps the target of the spell is detectable also - that would
explain why Arthur was able to blast the blocked fireplace, and
still leave Harry (and probably everyone else i the house) protected.
All harmful spells cast on a person would fail. I think this is
more likely than the detection of intention (which would be a
serious off-balancing effect - just screen everyone for intention
before letting them inside Hogwarts, for example)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
"She complicates this whole business, and I don't like complications.
I like nice, simple situations and nice, easy solutions."
"Good and Evil?" Durnik suggested.
"That's a difficult one, Durnik. I prefer 'them and us.' That clears
away all the excess baggage and allows you to get right down to cases."
Tennant Stuart
Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 00:30:06 BST, Tennant Stuart
> <ten...@argonet.co.uk> row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro,
> wrote this note :
>> In article <r22mpu056e12mek44...@4ax.com>,
>> Phaedra <phaedr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> The Ghosts, which inhabite Hogsworth, actually do the silent apparate,
>>> but then, that is also their nature.
>> Well, not all of them. In PS-07 there was a pop, and Peeves appeared.
> err... but Peeves isn't a ghost!! :)
Yes he is, 'poltergeist' means noisy ghost, (from the German).
Kevin Karpenske
news:na.8d2aaa4b80...@argonet.co.uk:
> In article <k75opu0st0a3cggq2...@4ax.com>,
> Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> wrote:
>
>>> Well, not all of them. In PS-07 there was a pop, and Peeves
>>> appeared.
>>
>> err... but Peeves isn't a ghost!! :)
>
> Yes he is, 'poltergeist' means noisy ghost, (from the German).
There is a clear distinction to be made, however.
Hogwarts ghosts are silvery gray.
Peeves is in honest-to-goodness, full-blown color.
Furthermore, there has been no indication that Peeves was *ever* alive.
Sky Rider
<ten...@argonet.co.uk> row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro,
wrote this note :
>In article <k75opu0st0a3cggq2...@4ax.com>,
>Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 00:30:06 BST, Tennant Stuart
>> <ten...@argonet.co.uk> row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro,
>> wrote this note :
>>> In article <r22mpu056e12mek44...@4ax.com>,
>>> Phaedra <phaedr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> The Ghosts, which inhabite Hogsworth, actually do the silent apparate,
>>>> but then, that is also their nature.
>>> Well, not all of them. In PS-07 there was a pop, and Peeves appeared.
>> err... but Peeves isn't a ghost!! :)
>Yes he is, 'poltergeist' means noisy ghost, (from the German).
in German he might be... but not from common English usage he isn't!
He is a malevolent spirit... who exists as an entity without having
ever been a human who has died....
... haven't we had this argument already (several times)??
Tennant Stuart
Kevin Karpenske <s...@my.sig> wrote:
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in
> news:na.8d2aaa4b80...@argonet.co.uk:
>> In article <k75opu0st0a3cggq2...@4ax.com>,
>> Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> wrote:
>>>> Well, not all of them. In PS-07 there was a pop, and Peeves
>>>> appeared.
>>> err... but Peeves isn't a ghost!! :)
>> Yes he is, 'poltergeist' means noisy ghost, (from the German).
> There is a clear distinction to be made, however.
> Hogwarts ghosts are silvery gray.
> Peeves is in honest-to-goodness, full-blown color.
How do we know that? I hope you're not referring to the orange hat
and bow tie he put on for the deathday party in CoS-08.
> Furthermore, there has been no indication that Peeves was *ever* alive.
Oh come on, that's not proof. You might as well argue that Dumbledore is
a bastard since there is no indication that his parents ever married.
Kevin Karpenske
>>>> err... but Peeves isn't a ghost!! :)
>>>
>>> Yes he is, 'poltergeist' means noisy ghost, (from the German).
>>
>> There is a clear distinction to be made, however.
>>
>> Hogwarts ghosts are silvery gray.
>>
>> Peeves is in honest-to-goodness, full-blown color.
>
> How do we know that? I hope you're not referring to the orange hat
> and bow tie he put on for the deathday party in CoS-08.
All of the other ghosts are routinely labeled as silvery gray - almost
every time you see them. Not once has Peeves been labeled as such.
The orange party hat was, indeed, for the Deathday party, but he wears
the orange bow tie all the time.
-quote:GoF-
Harry looked up and saw, floating twenty feet above them, Peeves the
Poltergeist, a little man in a bell-covered hat and orange bow tie, his
wide, malicious face contorted with concentration as he took aim again.
-/quote-
The fact that he *can* wear colored clothing is evidence enough. Peeves
can touch, carry, and throw solid objects, whereas ghosts cannot.
>> Furthermore, there has been no indication that Peeves was *ever*
>> alive.
>
> Oh come on, that's not proof. You might as well argue that Dumbledore
> is a bastard since there is no indication that his parents ever
> married.
I'm not sure what you're on about. There *is* a clear implication that
all of the other Hogwarts ghosts were alive at one point. Sir Nick,
Myrtle, the Friar, the Bloody Baron... not much about the Grey Lady yet,
but it'd be illogical to assume otherwise.
Peeves, on the other hand, has been in and out of at least a dozen
scenes, though, without ever a whisper of where he's from or why he's
there - in fact, it's really a great mystery.
Tennant Stuart
Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Oct 2002 18:13:10 BST, Tennant Stuart
> <ten...@argonet.co.uk> row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro,
> wrote this note :
>> In article <k75opu0st0a3cggq2...@4ax.com>,
>> Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 00:30:06 BST, Tennant Stuart
>>> <ten...@argonet.co.uk> row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro,
>>> wrote this note :
>>>> In article <r22mpu056e12mek44...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Phaedra <phaedr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> The Ghosts, which inhabite Hogsworth, actually do the silent
>>>>> apparate, but then, that is also their nature.
>>>> Well, not all of them. In PS-07 there was a pop, and Peeves appeared.
>>> err... but Peeves isn't a ghost!! :)
>> Yes he is, 'poltergeist' means noisy ghost, (from the German).
> in German he might be... but not from common English usage he isn't!
> He is a malevolent spirit... who exists as an entity without having
> ever been a human who has died....
That's not so. Chambers Dictionary defines a poltergeist as a mysterious
invisible agency asserted to throw things about; a noisy ghost. You are
confusing this with the theory that the things are not thrown about by a
ghost, but by telekinetic means, often associated with a pubescent girl.
> ... haven't we had this argument already (several times)??
You might, but I haven't.
Kevin Karpenske
> In article <oc90qu83bugrjuoo7...@4ax.com>,
> Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Oct 2002 18:13:10 BST, Tennant Stuart
>> <ten...@argonet.co.uk> row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro,
>> wrote this note :
>>
>>> In article <k75opu0st0a3cggq2...@4ax.com>,
>>> Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 00:30:06 BST, Tennant Stuart
>>>> <ten...@argonet.co.uk> row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro,
>>>> wrote this note :
>>>>
>>>>> Well, not all of them. In PS-07 there was a pop, and Peeves
>>>>> appeared.
>>>>
>>>> err... but Peeves isn't a ghost!! :)
>>>
>>> Yes he is, 'poltergeist' means noisy ghost, (from the German).
>>
>> in German he might be... but not from common English usage he isn't!
>> He is a malevolent spirit... who exists as an entity without having
>> ever been a human who has died....
>
> That's not so. Chambers Dictionary defines a poltergeist as a
> mysterious invisible agency asserted to throw things about; a noisy
> ghost.
The point is that there is a distinction to be made between Ghosts and
Poltergeists *in the HP universe*. (Please note that I just said: *in
the HP universe*. Thank you. :)) They are not interchangeable.
Ghosts are spirits left behind when their "living" selves die, after
having lived an unhappy/unfulfilling life (or so we think).
Poltergeists (and Peeves is our sole example) are something else
entirely. What exactly that "something" is we have yet to discover.
Consequently, ghosts and poltergeists, *in the HP universe*, are not
bound by the same rules - which was Sky Rider's point above.
Debates over the "definition" of ghosts and poltergeists are (if you'll
excuse my saying so) rather pointless, unless you can provide some
conclusive real-world *examples* of ghosts and poltergeists. :) (And, if
you can, I think you'll be famous in your own right. :P)
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Sky Rider <OD...@cyberscriber.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wro, wro, wrote this note :
>>>>
>>>> Yes he is, 'poltergeist' means noisy ghost, (from the German).
'Noisy spirit' I think, though I'm not entirely sure how the
distinction is made in English ('geist' can be used both for
the spirit of a dead and the spirit of a living).
> The point is that there is a distinction to be made between Ghosts and
> Poltergeists *in the HP universe*. (Please note that I just said: *in
> the HP universe*. Thank you. :)) They are not interchangeable.
>
> Ghosts are spirits left behind when their "living" selves die, after
> having lived an unhappy/unfulfilling life (or so we think).
>
> Poltergeists (and Peeves is our sole example) are something else
> entirely. What exactly that "something" is we have yet to discover.
Where did you get that?
(Darned - I feel I'm missing out half of the canon, because I've 'only'
read the four HP books ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
+++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe
And Reboot +++
-- (Terry Pratchett, Hogfather)
Kevin Karpenske
news:3DA12DC0...@ThisIsFake.fk:
>> The point is that there is a distinction to be made between Ghosts
>> and Poltergeists *in the HP universe*. (Please note that I just said:
>> *in the HP universe*. Thank you. :)) They are not interchangeable.
>>
>> Ghosts are spirits left behind when their "living" selves die, after
>> having lived an unhappy/unfulfilling life (or so we think).
>>
>> Poltergeists (and Peeves is our sole example) are something else
>> entirely. What exactly that "something" is we have yet to discover.
>
> Where did you get that?
> (Darned - I feel I'm missing out half of the canon, because I've
> 'only' read the four HP books ;-)
Simple, really. The ghosts are always called "ghosts," and Peeves is
always called a "poltergeist" - *never* a "ghost." Not once.
Peeves, a poltergeist, can physically interact with the world of the
living. None of the ghosts can.
Tennant Stuart
Kevin Karpenske <s...@my.sig> wrote:
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in
> news:na.3c6dd74b80...@argonet.co.uk:
>>>>> err... but Peeves isn't a ghost!! :)
>>>> Yes he is, 'poltergeist' means noisy ghost, (from the German).
>>> There is a clear distinction to be made, however.
>>> Hogwarts ghosts are silvery gray.
>>> Peeves is in honest-to-goodness, full-blown color.
>> How do we know that? I hope you're not referring to the orange hat
>> and bow tie he put on for the deathday party in CoS-08.
> All of the other ghosts are routinely labeled as silvery gray - almost
> every time you see them. Not once has Peeves been labeled as such.
> The orange party hat was, indeed, for the Deathday party, but he wears
> the orange bow tie all the time.
> -quote:GoF-
> Harry looked up and saw, floating twenty feet above them, Peeves the
> Poltergeist, a little man in a bell-covered hat and orange bow tie, his
> wide, malicious face contorted with concentration as he took aim again.
> -/quote-
> The fact that he *can* wear colored clothing is evidence enough. Peeves
> can touch, carry, and throw solid objects, whereas ghosts cannot.
You do not know that. All we can say is that Peeves is a ghost who can
touch, carry, and throw solid objects, while most other ghosts cannot.
JKR (who did French, Greek and German at university) is very particular
about the words she uses, and she knows all about their origins, and so
she'll be aware that the 'geist' in poltergeist literally means ghost.
>>> Furthermore, there has been no indication that Peeves was *ever*
>>> alive.
>> Oh come on, that's not proof. You might as well argue that Dumbledore
>> is a bastard since there is no indication that his parents ever
>> married.
> I'm not sure what you're on about. There *is* a clear implication that
> all of the other Hogwarts ghosts were alive at one point. Sir Nick,
> Myrtle, the Friar, the Bloody Baron... not much about the Grey Lady yet,
> but it'd be illogical to assume otherwise.
> Peeves, on the other hand, has been in and out of at least a dozen
> scenes, though, without ever a whisper of where he's from or why he's
> there - in fact, it's really a great mystery.
Why is it illogical to assume the Grey Lady was never alive, yet logical
to assume that Peeves was never alive, on the same lack of evidence?
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.fk> wrote:
>>
>>> The point is that there is a distinction to be made between Ghosts
>>> and Poltergeists *in the HP universe*. (Please note that I just said:
>>> *in the HP universe*. Thank you. :)) They are not interchangeable.
>>>
>>> Ghosts are spirits left behind when their "living" selves die, after
>>> having lived an unhappy/unfulfilling life (or so we think).
>>>
>>> Poltergeists (and Peeves is our sole example) are something else
>>> entirely. What exactly that "something" is we have yet to discover.
>>
>> Where did you get that?
>> (Darned - I feel I'm missing out half of the canon, because I've
>> 'only' read the four HP books ;-)
>
> Simple, really. The ghosts are always called "ghosts," and Peeves is
> always called a "poltergeist" - *never* a "ghost." Not once.
>
> Peeves, a poltergeist, can physically interact with the world of the
> living. None of the ghosts can.
Evidence is sometimes right in front of our eyes without being noticed.
In PS when the first years are waiting to be sorted, the fat Friar and
Sir Nicholas comes through the room arguing about Peeves. Sir Nicholas
says:
"My dear Friar, haven't we given Peeves all the chances he deserves?
He gives us all a bad name and you know, he's not really even a
ghost - ..."
So - I guess that sort of settles it, doesn't it?
Tennant Stuart
<s...@my.sig> wrote:
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.fk> wrote in
> news:3DA12DC0...@ThisIsFake.fk:
>>> The point is that there is a distinction to be made between Ghosts
>>> and Poltergeists *in the HP universe*. (Please note that I just said:
>>> *in the HP universe*. Thank you. :)) They are not interchangeable.
>>> Ghosts are spirits left behind when their "living" selves die, after
>>> having lived an unhappy/unfulfilling life (or so we think).
>>> Poltergeists (and Peeves is our sole example) are something else
>>> entirely. What exactly that "something" is we have yet to discover.
>> Where did you get that?
>> (Darned - I feel I'm missing out half of the canon, because I've
>> 'only' read the four HP books ;-)
> Simple, really. The ghosts are always called "ghosts," and Peeves is
> always called a "poltergeist" - *never* a "ghost." Not once.
He is called a ghost *every* time, since 'geist' means ghost.
> Peeves, a poltergeist, can physically interact with the world of the
> living. None of the ghosts can.
That just means that Peeves is a ghost who can physically interact with
the world of the living, while *most* of the ghosts cannot.
In fact it could be that Nearly Headless Nick has some kind of physical
interaction with the world of the living, since he was not immune to the
basilisk, and then he was restored by a potion.
Tennant Stuart
Kevin Karpenske <s...@my.sig> wrote:
I agree that it is the HP universe which counts, yet *you* are the one
who is imposing his own ideas of what Peeves really is. I am simply going
by the fact that Joanne Rowling, who studied German at university, and is
very particular about the words she uses, as well as their origins, chose
to describe Peeves as a poltergeist, and 'geist' is German for ghost.
Kevin Karpenske
>> The fact that he *can* wear colored clothing is evidence enough.
>> Peeves can touch, carry, and throw solid objects, whereas ghosts
>> cannot.
>
> You do not know that. All we can say is that Peeves is a ghost who can
> touch, carry, and throw solid objects, while most other ghosts cannot.
>
> JKR (who did French, Greek and German at university) is very
> particular about the words she uses, and she knows all about their
> origins, and so she'll be aware that the 'geist' in poltergeist
> literally means ghost.
Does she call Peeves a ghost? No.
I'm not saying that he's not a "ghost." I'm saying that he's
distinguished from the rest in this manner.
(snip)
>> Peeves, on the other hand, has been in and out of at least a dozen
>> scenes, though, without ever a whisper of where he's from or why he's
>> there - in fact, it's really a great mystery.
>
> Why is it illogical to assume the Grey Lady was never alive, yet
> logical to assume that Peeves was never alive, on the same lack of
> evidence?
Ghosts - as in, the spirits of the dead, *in the HP universe* - have a
limitation: they cannot interact with solid objects. Every "ghost" whom
we have met, whom we know used to be alive, behaves in this manner. When
they pass through the living, the living feels only icy coldness. Beyond
this, ghosts can merely speak to the living. (Yes, this is speculation,
but all of the evidence is to this effect.)
Ghosts cannot suddenly disappear. They move from room to room - usually
through the walls - but cannot get from point A to point B without
traversing all of the space in-between. (Yes, this is speculation, but
all of the evidence is to this effect.)
We have 5 examples of "ghosts," 4 whom we know were once alive. It'd be
ignoring the obvious to suppose the fifth is not the same way. (Yes,
this is speculation, but all of the evidence is to this effect.)
We have 1 example of a "poltergeist." Peeves abides by neither of the
above rules. He interacts with the living on a daily (minutely) basis,
and pops in and out of sight regularly.
-quote:PS/SS-
He would drop wastepaper baskets on your head, pull rugs from under your
feet, pelt you with bits of chalk, or sneak up behind you, invisible,
grab your nose, and screech, "GOT YOUR CONK!"
-/quote-
-quote:PS/SS-
There was a pop, and a little man with wicked, dark eyes and a wide
mouth appeared, floating cross-legged in the air, clutching the walking
sticks.
-/quote-
Obviously he can *touch* the living.
He can also turn invisible.
He is not described as a "ghost" - he is described as a *little man*.
Also, notice that it doesn't say "a little, silvery-white man with..."
etc.
Whereas, only a few pages before this:
-quote:PS/SS-
About twenty ghosts had just streamed through the back wall.
Pearly-white and slightly transparent, they glided across the room
talking to one another and hardly glancing at the first years.
-/quote-
-quote:PS/SS-
Dotted here and there among the students, the ghosts shone misty silver.
-/quote-
-quote:PS/SS-
Unlike the ghosts around them, Peeves the Poltergeist was the very
reverse of pale and transparent. He was wearing a bright orange party
hat, a revolving bow tie, and a broad grin on his wide, wicked face.
-/quote-
The reverse of pale and transparent. He is not transparent. He is not
pale (silvery-white). He wears colored clothes, for starters.
Anyway, this is all to emphasize how Peeves differs from the ghosts.
Hogwarts "ghosts," as we know them, are what happens to a person's
spirit when it remains on the earth - take Myrtle into especial
consideration, as she has recalled her death experience quite vividly.
They become pearly-white apparitions that cannot interact with the
living, but, for all intents and purposes, retain knowledge of their
past as a living being. (Yes, this is speculation, but all of the
evidence is to this effect.)
Peeves is a poltergeist. He is like the Weasleys' ghoul in the attic;
that is, just there to do what he does - the ghoul bangs on pipes,
Peeves bangs on students' and teachers' heads. He is a colorful, loud,
non-transparent, unbound apparition with a thirst for causing mayhem. To
the extent of our knowledge, no death of a human would turn them into
something like Peeves. We have no idea where he might have been prior to
his existence at Hogwarts - *if* he existed prior to Hogwarts at all.
Rowling has yet to tell us where poltergeists come from - and I would
very much love to know, as I presently cannot make any good guesses.
And, yes, this is *all* speculation, but *all* of the evidence is to
this effect, and there isn't a drop to the contrary.
This is my opinion. If you feel differently, by all means, cite the
passages that gave you your impression - as the passages in the books
(and some select interviews) are really all that we have to go by. I
have referenced 4 already, and could readily grab some more.
Kevin Karpenske
>> Debates over the "definition" of ghosts and poltergeists are (if
>> you'll excuse my saying so) rather pointless, unless you can provide
>> some conclusive real-world *examples* of ghosts and poltergeists. :)
>> (And, if you can, I think you'll be famous in your own right. :P)
>
> I agree that it is the HP universe which counts, yet *you* are the one
> who is imposing his own ideas of what Peeves really is. I am simply
> going by the fact that Joanne Rowling, who studied German at
> university, and is very particular about the words she uses, as well
> as their origins, chose to describe Peeves as a poltergeist, and
> 'geist' is German for ghost.
There is a distinction.
Troels' post made Rowling's take on the matter quite clear. Peeves is
not a "ghost," in the manner that the other ghosts are.
I'm surprised that I forgot about the passage that he quoted.
I'm not going to argue this any further, as it's really quite clear-cut.
Kevin Karpenske
@ThisIsFake.fk:
> Evidence is sometimes right in front of our eyes without being noticed.
>
> In PS when the first years are waiting to be sorted, the fat Friar and
> Sir Nicholas comes through the room arguing about Peeves. Sir Nicholas
> says:
> "My dear Friar, haven't we given Peeves all the chances he deserves?
> He gives us all a bad name and you know, he's not really even a
> ghost - ..."
>
> So - I guess that sort of settles it, doesn't it?
> ;-)
Thanks for that. ;)
Completely forgot about that line, though it's always lurking in the back
of my head (and is what ultimately drove my [and many others'] opinion in
the first place).
Yes, if one actually reads the books and pays attention, you come away with
a *feel* for the story, and how everything fits in place. Peeves and the
ghosts are fit firmly in their place.
In any case, I still like all of the other evidence that I gave that shows
how "ghosts" and "poltergeists" are different.
(For Tennant: ***IN THE HP UNIVERSE***)
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.fk> wrote in news:3DA1966A.ECF7E071
> @ThisIsFake.fk:
>
>> Evidence is sometimes right in front of our eyes without being noticed.
>>
>> In PS when the first years are waiting to be sorted, the fat Friar and
>> Sir Nicholas comes through the room arguing about Peeves. Sir Nicholas
>> says:
>> "My dear Friar, haven't we given Peeves all the chances he deserves?
>> He gives us all a bad name and you know, he's not really even a
>> ghost - ..."
>>
>> So - I guess that sort of settles it, doesn't it?
>> ;-)
>
> Thanks for that. ;)
I have to admit to a weakness. I like to come up with the quote to
prove matters one way or another as much as I love to discuss an
unclear point ;-) (Even if the proof is against my own opinion - I went
looking for that passage, because I thought that it would strengthen the
'we-don't-know' position ;-)
> Yes, if one actually reads the books and pays attention, you come away with
> a *feel* for the story, and how everything fits in place.
Yes.
The difficult part is to discern what's actually explicit in the books,
what is implied and what is interpretation - or 'feeling'. In my
experience
this can take numerous rereadings and even more numerous discussions
with
other learned fans to actually get those things down. The more intricate
the universe, the more lengthy the process.
> Peeves and the ghosts are fit firmly in their place.
How much more do we know than the fact that they're different, that
ghosts
are subject to the Basilisk petrification (and some kind of medication
based on essence of Mandrake)?
Kevin Karpenske
(snip)
>> Yes, if one actually reads the books and pays attention, you come
>> away with a *feel* for the story, and how everything fits in place.
>
> Yes.
> The difficult part is to discern what's actually explicit in the
> books, what is implied and what is interpretation - or 'feeling'. In
> my experience this can take numerous rereadings and even more numerous
> discussions with other learned fans to actually get those things down.
> The more intricate the universe, the more lengthy the process.
Aye. This is why I'm "quote-happy." :) I have read all 4 books, erm...
let's say... in the past year, a dozen times completely through - about
once per month seems about right - plus "spot re-readings" whenever a
discussion calls for it.
I know there's a good number of people who have me licked in this aspect
(the once-per-week folks ;)), but I must say that it never feels like I
am *not* currently re-reading the books, so they are rather "on my
brain" most of the time.
There is a "feel" that I have settled into - kind of like a "Harry
Potter comfort zone" - wherein I have a good sense of where everything
lies, no doubt aided considerably by my participation in the discussions
in this newsgroup. :P
Of course, that "feel" will most likely have to be scrapped, come book
five. :)
>> Peeves and the ghosts are fit firmly in their place.
>
> How much more do we know than the fact that they're different, that
> ghosts are subject to the Basilisk petrification (and some kind of
> medication based on essence of Mandrake)?
Nothing more, but that was the whole point. :) They are *different*, and
that's what matters.
Well, there's also the "was once alive" vs. "was never alive"
speculation, but that wasn't the original point, and I won't press it
any further.
Tennant Stuart
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.fk> wrote:
> Evidence is sometimes right in front of our eyes without being noticed.
> In PS when the first years are waiting to be sorted, the fat Friar and
> Sir Nicholas comes through the room arguing about Peeves. Sir Nicholas
> says: "My dear Friar, haven't we given Peeves all the chances he
> deserves? He gives us all a bad name and you know, he's not really
> even a ghost - ..."
> So - I guess that sort of settles it, doesn't it? ;-)
Hehe, nice try - but that's prejudice, a theme which runs all through
the books; from Muggles not being proper people, house elves glad to be
slaves, and Mudbloods like Dean & Hermione not being wizards & witches.
Kevin Karpenske
> In article <3DA1966A...@ThisIsFake.fk>, Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.fk> wrote:
>
>> Evidence is sometimes right in front of our eyes without being
>> noticed.
>
>> In PS when the first years are waiting to be sorted, the fat Friar
>> and Sir Nicholas comes through the room arguing about Peeves. Sir
>> Nicholas says: "My dear Friar, haven't we given Peeves all the
>> chances he deserves? He gives us all a bad name and you know, he's
>> not really even a ghost - ..."
>>
>> So - I guess that sort of settles it, doesn't it? ;-)
>
> Hehe, nice try - but that's prejudice, a theme which runs all through
> the books; from Muggles not being proper people, house elves glad to
> be slaves, and Mudbloods like Dean & Hermione not being wizards &
> witches.
Give it up, Tennant! :)
Sky Rider
<ten...@argonet.co.uk> row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro,
wrote this note :
>In article <3DA1966A...@ThisIsFake.fk>, Troels Forchhammer
><Tro...@ThisIsFake.fk> wrote:
>> Evidence is sometimes right in front of our eyes without being noticed.
>> In PS when the first years are waiting to be sorted, the fat Friar and
>> Sir Nicholas comes through the room arguing about Peeves. Sir Nicholas
>> says: "My dear Friar, haven't we given Peeves all the chances he
>> deserves? He gives us all a bad name and you know, he's not really
>> even a ghost - ..."
>> So - I guess that sort of settles it, doesn't it? ;-)
>Hehe, nice try - but that's prejudice, a theme which runs all through
>the books; from Muggles not being proper people, house elves glad to be
>slaves, and Mudbloods like Dean & Hermione not being wizards & witches.
aw come on now... surely a ghost can tell is something else is or
isn't a ghost as well??
Tennant Stuart
<s...@my.sig> wrote:
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in
> news:na.bea2be4b81...@argonet.co.uk:
>>> The fact that he *can* wear colored clothing is evidence enough.
>>> Peeves can touch, carry, and throw solid objects, whereas ghosts
>>> cannot.
>> You do not know that. All we can say is that Peeves is a ghost who can
>> touch, carry, and throw solid objects, while most other ghosts cannot.
>> JKR (who did French, Greek and German at university) is very
>> particular about the words she uses, and she knows all about their
>> origins, and so she'll be aware that the 'geist' in poltergeist
>> literally means ghost.
> Does she call Peeves a ghost? No.
> I'm not saying that he's not a "ghost." I'm saying that he's
> distinguished from the rest in this manner.
Gosh! Suddenly you agree with me. :)
>>> Peeves, on the other hand, has been in and out of at least a dozen
>>> scenes, though, without ever a whisper of where he's from or why he's
>>> there - in fact, it's really a great mystery.
>> Why is it illogical to assume the Grey Lady was never alive, yet
>> logical to assume that Peeves was never alive, on the same lack of
>> evidence?
> Ghosts - as in, the spirits of the dead, *in the HP universe* - have a
> limitation: they cannot interact with solid objects. Every "ghost" whom
> we have met, whom we know used to be alive, behaves in this manner. When
> they pass through the living, the living feels only icy coldness. Beyond
> this, ghosts can merely speak to the living. (Yes, this is speculation,
> but all of the evidence is to this effect.)
> Ghosts cannot suddenly disappear. They move from room to room - usually
> through the walls - but cannot get from point A to point B without
> traversing all of the space in-between. (Yes, this is speculation, but
> all of the evidence is to this effect.)
> We have 5 examples of "ghosts," 4 whom we know were once alive. It'd be
> ignoring the obvious to suppose the fifth is not the same way. (Yes,
> this is speculation, but all of the evidence is to this effect.)
> We have 1 example of a "poltergeist." Peeves abides by neither of the
> above rules. He interacts with the living on a daily (minutely) basis,
> and pops in and out of sight regularly.
<Snip many examples>
You have ignored all the occasions where at least two of the 'ordinary'
ghosts interacted with the world of the living. Myrtle does not merely
fade into the toilet bowls, her physical presence makes the water splash
about, there are numerous examples of this.
And there are at least three examples of Nearly Headless Nick interacting
with the world of the living - he was stunned by a basilisk, he was blown
along by a current of air, and then he was restored by a potion.
> Anyway, this is all to emphasize how Peeves differs from the ghosts.
> Hogwarts "ghosts," as we know them, are what happens to a person's
> spirit when it remains on the earth - take Myrtle into especial
> consideration, as she has recalled her death experience quite vividly.
Please supply an example from the books to show that Peeves is *not*
pearly-white. At the deathday party he's described as being the very
reverse of transparent, but the only reference to colour is the party
hat he was wearing, and possiibly the bow tie as well.
> They become pearly-white apparitions that cannot interact with the
> living, but, for all intents and purposes, retain knowledge of their
> past as a living being. (Yes, this is speculation, but all of the
> evidence is to this effect.)
Actually, since 3 ghosts (Peeves, Moaning Myrtle, and Nearly Headless
Nick) *do* interact with the world of the living, there's no reason to
suppose that none of the others can't do the same in some way.
> Peeves is a poltergeist. He is like the Weasleys' ghoul in the attic;
> that is, just there to do what he does - the ghoul bangs on pipes,
> Peeves bangs on students' and teachers' heads. He is a colorful,
Not so, he put on two colourful items of clothing.
> loud,
And all the others are quiet?
> non-transparent,
Where does it say this?
> unbound
Myrtle is unbound, probably more so than Peeves is. She can even leave
the school when she wants to, for she attended Mr.Hornby's wedding.
> apparition with a thirst for causing mayhem. To the extent of our
> knowledge, no death of a human would turn them into something like
> Peeves. We have no idea where he might have been prior to his existence
> at Hogwarts - *if* he existed prior to Hogwarts at all.
That's pure speculation.
> Rowling has yet to tell us where poltergeists come from - and I would
> very much love to know, as I presently cannot make any good guesses.
I agree. ;)
> And, yes, this is *all* speculation, but *all* of the evidence is to
> this effect, and there isn't a drop to the contrary.
That's just the problem, Kevin. You draw boundary lines around separate
examples of a phenomenon about which we have insufficient information.
> This is my opinion. If you feel differently, by all means, cite the
> passages that gave you your impression - as the passages in the books
> (and some select interviews) are really all that we have to go by. I
> have referenced 4 already, and could readily grab some more.
All I'm saying is that Peeves is a ghost, since poltergeist literally
means 'noisy ghost', and I accept that ghosts vary. I am not going to
take one group of ghosts and say that they are the only ghosts, while
regarding other groups of ghosts as not being ghosts.
I am *not* accusing you of being a racist, but that's what racists do
with people - anybody the same colour as them is a person, and anyone
of a different colour is then classed as somehow not being a person.
JKR alludes to this whenever Hermione is called a Mudblood.
Tennant Stuart
Kevin Karpenske <s...@my.sig> wrote:
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in
> news:na.cdcccc4b81...@argonet.co.uk:
>> In article <3DA1966A...@ThisIsFake.fk>, Troels Forchhammer
>> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.fk> wrote:
>>> Evidence is sometimes right in front of our eyes without being
>>> noticed.
>>> In PS when the first years are waiting to be sorted, the fat Friar
>>> and Sir Nicholas comes through the room arguing about Peeves. Sir
>>> Nicholas says: "My dear Friar, haven't we given Peeves all the
>>> chances he deserves? He gives us all a bad name and you know, he's
>>> not really even a ghost - ..."
>>> So - I guess that sort of settles it, doesn't it? ;-)
>> Hehe, nice try - but that's prejudice, a theme which runs all through
>> the books; from Muggles not being proper people, house elves glad to
>> be slaves, and Mudbloods like Dean & Hermione not being wizards &
>> witches.
> Give it up, Tennant! :)
You give it up. Poltergeist means noisy ghost.
Kevin Karpenske
>> Give it up, Tennant! :)
>
> You give it up. Poltergeist means noisy ghost.
Distinction. Distinction. Distinction.
They are not of the same "class."
Sky Rider
<ten...@argonet.co.uk> row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro,
wrote this note :
>In article <Xns92A0B9121F9...@64.154.60.171>,
>Kevin Karpenske <s...@my.sig> wrote:
>> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:na.cdcccc4b81...@argonet.co.uk:
>>> In article <3DA1966A...@ThisIsFake.fk>, Troels Forchhammer
>>> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.fk> wrote:
>>>> Evidence is sometimes right in front of our eyes without being
>>>> noticed.
>>>> In PS when the first years are waiting to be sorted, the fat Friar
>>>> and Sir Nicholas comes through the room arguing about Peeves. Sir
>>>> Nicholas says: "My dear Friar, haven't we given Peeves all the
>>>> chances he deserves? He gives us all a bad name and you know, he's
>>>> not really even a ghost - ..."
>>>> So - I guess that sort of settles it, doesn't it? ;-)
>>> Hehe, nice try - but that's prejudice, a theme which runs all through
>>> the books; from Muggles not being proper people, house elves glad to
>>> be slaves, and Mudbloods like Dean & Hermione not being wizards &
>>> witches.
>> Give it up, Tennant! :)
>You give it up. Poltergeist means noisy ghost.
But that's a name applied to an entity thing that living humans can
have no real experience of. To us anything that looks like a ghost
*is* a ghost.... !!
I'd prefer to believe the ghosts themselves who understand such things
and say he isn't *really* a ghost!@