3.8 Magic (and Dorothy the Dinosaur)

Sat Mar 12 14:29:48 UTC 2005

Carolyn wrote:
Postscript/decision: I talked to Tim about this, and we think from
the search POV it would be best to continue with this policy for now
(ie cross-coding). If necessary, we can clear them out of etymology
later.

Dot:
So what should I do with squibs? Should all the mentions of Petunia 
possibly being a squib be coded to Petunia *and* squibs, even though 
they don't discuss squibs at all? I don't really want them in 
squibs, but if you say they should stay, they shall.

Sorry that the following is so long (and has taken so long), but it 
all got a bit confusing, and I was off sick the day the time-turners 
were handed out.

3.8 Magic (19 posts which have now disappeared, but I've still got a 
list of them) where nowt should be coded.

Most of these can be removed to other categories, however, a few 
discuss Magic vs Muggle technology and include limitations on magic, 
how magic affects muggle technology and magic as technology in the 
WW. Limits on Magic will go to general properties and types of 
magic, magic vs/as/interfering with technology into Wireless and 
other wizarding technologies. Ok? 

There were three posts on how magic is viewed in the Bible and the 
Talmud – with *absolutely no* reference to HP whatsoever (17962, 
17993 and 18036), which I don't quite know what to do with. 
Presumably 3.8.2 Gen. Prop. & types of magic cross-coded to 
religious influences – though it's a bit of an abuse of 3.8.2 (but 
see below).

3.8.1 Magical ability (395)

"Post about what magical ability is, how it manifests itself, how 
wizards use it to make things happen"

There are precious few posts that really discuss this definition 
directly. They are mostly:
- comparisons or mentions of magical proficiency of characters, or 
questioning the ability of a character to perform xyz. (all except 
the mentions, can stay.)
- development of magical ability – `instinctive' magic (which should 
be under `wandless') performed before going to Hogwarts, improvement 
at spells with practice, mentions of whether a character is gifted 
or whether they just work hard. (Grudgingly keep most.)
- The End of Magic. The idea (which resurfaces from time to time) 
that Harry can only defeat Voldy by causing magic to disappear from 
the world completely. (There must be a better place to put them than 
here.)
- Is Voldy "Great"? (Not really talking about magical ability, best 
to leave just coded to Voldy.)
- Often used as a code for the powers that were transferred from 
Voldy to Harry at GH. (Yeah, all right, they can stay.)

I'd like to uncheck all those which make references to magical 
ability/development of a character with no discussion or back-up 
from canon (of which there are some). Those which discuss it in 
depth – was Pettigrew really capable of pulling off the stunt with 
the finger? Is Neville a Great wizard labouring under the handicap 
of an OTT memory charm? etc – would stay. 

3.8.1.1	Squibs (80)

"This topic could overlap with 3.5.2 (Purebloods & half bloods); 
remember to code also to individual characters discussed"

Many mentions of squibs but little discussion. If I'm nice, I could 
prune it to 55 or so; if I'm *really* ruthless I could get it down 
to 30 (see above about cross-coding). 

3.8.2	General properties & types of magic (262)

" Posts about the underlying principles of magic behind the spells 
and potions etc that we have been shown in the books"

Nightmare category, very easily abused. Dumping ground for all 
sorts. Will become clearer when I've done all the others, so I'm 
coming back to it later.

3.8.2.1	Ancient Magic (69)

"What is it, examples of"

Almost all posts in this category are also coded to one of the 
following:
1.3.5.1 Godric's Hollow/Death of Lily & James
3.5.4 Blood protection
3.8.2 General properties & types of magic

Seems to be quite tempting to add Ancient Magic to discussions of 
the first two, so stuff discussing Lily's sacrifice or Harry's 
protection at the Dursleys' I'd like to take out of this category 
(leaving in 1.3.5.1 and 3.5.4). I think it should really be a subset 
of 3.8.2 (Gen. Properties and types of magic) – so general 
discussions about magic go into 3.8.2, and only those which 
significantly discuss ancient magic in itself (rather than just 
mention it) get coded under 3.8.2.1.

3.8.2.2	Life Debts (83)

"What obligations these impose, how they come about"

Well there's a lot of "What if x owes y a life debt!" I'd like to 
cut it down to discussion of them (i.e. the James/Snape one and the 
Harry/Pettigrew one) rather than speculation about others. There may 
be one or two well-argued theories which hinge on non-canonical life-
debts or how they work, which can stay. If I wanted to find out 
about life-debts (according to the definition above) I wouldn't want 
to find speculation that Voldy owed Lily because of blah blah blah. 
Sound reasonable?

3.8.3 Wands (303, down to 215) done.

"What they do, what they are made of, how they choose the 
wizard/witch etc. Include discussions of specific character's wands"

Some posts coded here that should be under 3.8.3.1 Wandless magic or 
priori incantatem (presumably from before those categories 
existed).  Otherwise, pretty straightforward.

However, new rules:
*Mentioning* wands or wand-cores or the fact that Ron had a broken 
wand or that Voldy and Harry have Fawkes-feather wands, or that 
Hagrid has his wand pieces hidden in his umbrella as evidence for an 
argument does *not* count as substantive discussion about wands.

So canonical wand facts used in support of a theory/argument which 
has nothing to do with wands *don't* go here.

And there's already plenty of stuff about Ron and Cedric's wands 
having unicorn tail hair, and a centaur saying that the innocent are 
always the first to die and Cedric's dead so what if Ron's for it 
next?! Unless it's really good, don't bother.

3.8.3.1	Wandless magic (46, down to 32)

Again quite straightforward, removed references to it and left only 
proper discussion.

Once I've finished General Properties and Types of Magic, I'll come 
up with new definitions for each of the categories.

> > Dot wrote:
> > (Who had a dinosaur-fixation in her youth, and wonders if she 
> > can get an easy birthday present for her similarly-fixated 
> > nephew.)
> 
> Sean "Pingu" Dwyer wrote:
Dorothy the Dinosaur... 
> http://shop.thewiggles.com.au/store/products/item253.inetstore
> ...
> Does your nephew like penguins? Lots of plush Linux penguins 
about :)
> 

No, I'm afraid it's dinosaurs or nothing. Thanks for the link, he's 
3, so technically probably the right age to discover that there's a 
spotty dinosaur with the same name as his aunt. Unfortunately he's 
also a bit of a purist, he wants to know what they're all called, 
and I think "Dorothy" might not entirely satisfy him. He can often 
be overheard saying things like "That's not Pachycephalosaurus 
Mummy, that's Hypsilophodon..." 

I'm looking forward to being a thoroughly bad influence on him when 
he's old enough for a sweep net and killing jar.  His mother's 
*very* squeamish about creepy crawlies.

Dot