Wands, genetics of magic, and unschooled mages

[Kavitha Kannan]

No: HPFGUIDX 24147

Wow...I was working on a ff this morning and ran up against the 
genetic aspect of magic. After sitting and mulling for a few minutes, 
I just came to the computer to post some ideas, and I found them 
here! Well, I'll add some thoughts to the Magical Ability Cauldron 
and give it a stir. 
OK...I agree that it would appear that the magical gene is dominant, 
because magical couples tend to have magical bairns...and if it was 
recessive...well, they wouldn't.  Or...twould be a one-in-four 
chance. But then...why do they have to marry Muggles or die out?  
Wouldn't the majority of the world be magical in that case?  Or do 
witches and wizards tend to only marry other witches and wizards? 
(not neccessarily respectively.) Does that keep the gene pool 
smaller?  But then...are they suffering from inbreeding?  Was there a 
bottleneck of magical folk in the past, and did they notice a lot of 
sickly young children, at which point they used the Divination skills 
to find the cause?  Or maybe twas common sense. But...there's another 
explaination. Is it possible that the magical gene, whether dominant 
of recessive, only shows up in someone with a magical genetic 
inheritence?  Could they have an extra gene which allows the 
possibilty of being magical or having magical children?  Genetics 
isn't my forte, and I have one year of Life Science from seventh 
grade-which seems a lifetime ago-to go on, but I'll bravely keep 
writing, and if I'm setting up impossible theories, forgive me, and 
please, someone explain.  I have nothing against learning.  
Is it possible the magical people are...different?  They may not be 
entirely human, in the sense that we common folk are.  So...they may 
have a seperate gene that determines magical ability, and that gene 
may not be present in the majority of the population...but then, what 
would happen when one of these people, be they a practicing Mage or 
someone with wizarding blood who cannot do magic, marries a normal 
human?  Am I just confusing myself and anyone reading this?  
Hmmm...*scratches head, trying to clarify her muddled thoughts* What 
I mean to say is: are magical humans defined by the presence of a 
genetic abnormality, perhaps one that is magical in nature?  Thereby 
allowing they to circumvent (is that the right word?  I think so...) 
the troubles of two different species breeding.  Or are they actually 
not a different species of homo sapiens, and is the gene that 
determines magic present in everyone?  Or maybe they're similar 
enough to not have a problem.  This assumes that the humans in the 
Potterverse are the same as humans on this planet, which I think it 
an acceptable assumption.  
My next question is: Is it possible for a wizard to not go to 
wizarding school?  The Dursleys' threatening to not let Harry go is 
the obvious example, but Justin Finch-Fletchley mentioned that his 
name was down for Eton, but he came here, and his mother was seeing 
how useful it could be to have a wizard in the family...so on and so 
forth.  Well, could he have gone to Eton?  Wouldn't that be 
dangerous?  An unschooled mage who would lose control in moments of 
extreme emotion, possibly with disasterous consequences?  Could it be 
that during times of extreme trouble for the wizarding world, or 
times of trouble in the Muggle world as well, some mages would slip 
out of notice?  Maybe during WW2, some of the people fleeing were 
magical, and this could be especially dangerous for...er...the 
magical children of Muggles...there, I didn't say the word-which-
mustn't-be-spoken-in-polite-company. So, could these people be 
wandering about, causing tornados or making lightning stirke their 
neighbor's home?  Or something on a smaller scale, probably?  
Although...maybe not. I would think magical ability would grow as 
someone aged...and that training, though dead useful for showing how 
magic can be channeled, doesn't actually contribute to magical 
power.  Or does magical power, if unused, just go away?  Is that what 
happens to people who don't use magic?
Next question...why do all the wizards/withces/warlocks in the 
Potterverse use wands when, historically, they were not considered 
neccessary?  Are they less dangerous for channeling raw power?  Or do 
they channel more power?  Or is it just that they look pretty? 
Perhaps one wizard got the idea, and everyone else 
developed...er...wand envy?  Is a bigger wand better...no, I guess 
not.  But having a wand is considered very cool, right?  So its a 
status symbol?  To show the might of wizards and witches the world 
over? Hmm...arrogant gits.  No...they have right.  My head'd be too 
big to fit thtugh doors if I found out I was a witch.  *shakes head 
regretfully*  But its too late...unless I wasn't noticed by the local 
wizarding school...*brightens visibly.*  Yes...I'll tell myself that. 
*nods decisively.*   
Okay, so...someone tell me, am I just overthinking the genetic stuff 
due to boredom?  Or does my thinking have several logical flaws due 
to fatigue from taking the cat to the vet at a horribly early hour 
this morning? Well, at any rate, the Magical Ability Cauldron, as I 
percieve it, is bubbling and thoughts are threatening to spill out 
over the edges, so I'll stop.  I think I need a pensieve.

Head spinning, going off for some nice relxing rocket science...well, 
actually, for lunch...rocket science is a bit beyond her
-Kavitha

P.S. Down below is the orignal post, or snippings of it.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., linman6868 at a... wrote:
> 
> W H A T  M A G I C A L  A B I L I T Y  I S
> 
> "I am much, much more than a man...." -- CANON EXAMPLES
> 
> What is magical ability?  The wizards in HP take the answer to this 
question 
> for granted, but, being Muggles, we don't.  What wizards do say, 
however, 
> gives us a few clues.
> 
> Most wizards speak of magical ability as an inherent talent that 
appears in 
> humans in various degrees.  We find this out for the first time 
when Hagrid 
> informs Harry that he is a wizard:
> 
> **
> "I'm a *what*?" gasped Harry.
> "A wizard, o' course," said Hagrid, sitting back down on the sofa, 
which 
> groaned and sank even lower, "an' a thumpin' good'un, I'd say, once 
yeh've 
> been trained up a bit.  With a mum and dad like yours, what else 
would yeh 
> be?...." (PS/SS, Ch. 4)
> **
> 
> Which gives us two more clues to the puzzle, that magical ability 
is 
> genetically linked, and that the talent can be cultivated to focus 
the power 
> of the wizard.
> 
> This is supported by Ron's explanation of the terms "Mudblood" 
and "Squib" in 
> CoS.  Ron, spouting slugs and indignation, explains Malfoy's insult 
to 
> Hermione:
> 
> **
> "It's about the most insulting thing he could think 
of....Mudblood's a really 
> foul name for someone who is Muggle-born -- you know, non-magic 
parents.  
> There are some wizards -- like Malfoy's family -- who think they're 
better 
> than everyone else because they're what people call pure-blood....I 
mean, the 
> rest of us know it doesn't make any difference at all.  Look at 
Neville 
> Longbottom -- he's pure-blood and he can hardly stand a cauldron 
the right 
> way up."
> "And they haven't invented a spell our Hermione can' do," said 
Hagrid....
> "It's a disgusting thing to call someone," said Ron, wiping his 
sweaty brow 
> with a shaking hand.  "Dirty blood, see.  Common blood.  It's 
ridiculous.  
> Most wizards these days are half-blood anyway.  If we hadn't 
married Muggles 
> we'd've died out."  (CoS, Ch. 7)
> **
> 
> And similarly, Ron explains what makes Argus Filch a Squib:
> 
> **
> "Well -- it's not funny really -- but as it's Filch," he said.  "A 
Squib is 
> someone who was born into a wizarding family but hasn't got any 
magic powers. 
>  Kind of the opposite of Muggle-born wizards, but Squibs are quite 
unusual.  
> If Filch's trying to learn magic from a Kwikspell course, I reckon 
he must be 
> a Squib.  It would explain a lot.  Like why he hates students so 
much."  Ron 
> gave a satisfied smile.  "He's bitter."  (CoS, Ch. 9)
> **
> 
> This would suggest that the wizarding talent gene is dominant, if 
apparently 
> magic-less people produce a wizard and wizards rarely produce 
anything but 
> more wizards.  According to Ron, Squibs and near-Squibs use such 
things as 
> Kwikspell courses in the attempt to make up for what powers they 
lack, 
> probably not with much results.  Which suggests again that training 
is meant 
> to focus and polish magical people's powers, not bring them into 
being where 
> they did not exist before.  On the other end of the scale, 
sometimes great 
> respect is afforded a wizard merely for having a high degree of 
magical 
> power, as Sirius explains:
> 
> **
> "He was tipped for the next Minister of Magic," said Sirius.  "He's 
a great 
> wizard, Barty Crouch [Sr.], powerfully magical -- and power-hungry. 
Oh never 
> a Voldemort supporter," he said, reading the look on Harry's 
face.  "No, 
> Barty Crouch was always very outspoken against the Dark Side...." 
(GoF, Ch 
> 27).
> **
> 
> In fact, wizards often place so much more emphasis on the existing 
power than 
> the training that many of them consider Muggles a separate species 
> altogether:  "We are all familiar with the extremists who campaign 
for the 
> classification of Muggles as 'beasts'," writes Newt Scamander (FB 
xiii).  
> 
> On the other hand, compare Hermione, hugging Harry before his 
showdown with 
> Voldemort in PS/SS:
> 
> **
> "Harry -- you're a great wizard, you know."
> "I'm not as good as you," said Harry, very embarrassed, as she let 
go of him.
> "Me!" said Hermione.  "Books!  And cleverness!  There are more 
important 
> things -- friendship and bravery and -- oh Harry -- be *careful*!"  
(PS/SS, 
> Ch. 16)
> **
> 
> According to Hermione, the most important thing about being a great 
wizard is 
> not the training or even the power but the sort of person one is in 
the first 
> place.  Which brings me to the next issue.
> 
> Thus magical ability is a complex component of a human being that 
is 
> genetically derived, varying in intensity, and in need of training 
and focus 
> like other talents.  It commands respect, but according to the 
wisest heads 
> ought to be the means to wise living, rather than the end.
> 
> My next post will deal with the subject of Wands and with Harry as 
the lens 
> through which we view this subject.  I'm also deferring the 
discussion 
> questions to that post, but feel free to slice and dice this up too.
> 
> To be continued....
> 
> Lisa I.
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]