Magical components (was Invisibiility Cloak - Moody - Kitty - Marvolo)

[Amanda Lewanski]

No: HPFGUIDX 18693

Morag Traynor wrote:

> Rita wrote and quoted:
>
> >Reading FB, I was (and am) irritated by how magical artifacts get
> their
> >powers from being made of magical beasts rather than from the magic
> of
> >the witch or wizard who made them.
>
> I rather liked that aspect as having a fair amount of explanatory
> power - it allows that some things, as invisibility cloaks above, can
> be rarer than others, some can be used, or mis-used by Muggles etc.
> It also shows that wizards are, like us, dependent on a natural world.

*ahem* At the risk of being a tad disgusting, there's nothing to suggest
that things made *out* of wizards would not be just as powerful as
things made out of magical animals. But that's not done, at least by
anyone we know. So the parallel may indeed be there, unseen. Things
probably could indeed be made, which derive their magic from having a
wizard component. Ugh.

Nor, I think, have we seen an object that is magic from a beast's
*performing* magic, which would be the parallel to an object deriving
its magic from the wizard creating it. It's the use of innately magical
components.

In any case, it takes a wizard to harness the innate magical component
in the desired application or form--that's at least half of the
equation, and I imagine the better the wizard-creator is, the more
effective the item.

--Amanda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]