My Conjuring Rant (WAS Limitations of magic on the Harry Potter series)

[Cindy C.]

No: HPFGUIDX 29950

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., fleurmellor at y... wrote:
> 
> What does everyone consider to be the main limitations to magic in 
> the series? 
<snip comments that magic cannot reverse death> 
> Why is it possible to re-grow bones (When Lockhart does a botch job 
> on Harrys arm and accidentally removes all his bones) but not whole 
> limbs (Mad eye Moodys wooden leg, wormtail having an arm crafted 
out 
> of silver to replace his own at the end of GOF)
> Also magic cannot seem to help money matters as we see by the 
> Weasleys finacial struggles

There is an excellent essay in the Lexicon on a few of these points:  
http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/magic_theory1.html.

IMHO, the limitations of magic are some of the most vague rules in 
JKR's wizarding world.  In addition to the mysteries you cite, I just 
gnash my teeth over some of the apparent inconsistencies regarding 
the limitations of magic.

Apparently, items that are conjured don't last.  Fair enough.  But 
they last a little while, don't they?  Bill conjures tablecloths in 
GoF:  "Bill reattached the table leg and conjured tablecloths from 
nowhere."

Dumbledore conjures sleeping bags in PoA:  "One casual wave of his 
wand and the long tables flew to the edges of the hall and stood 
themselves against the walls; another wave, and the floor was covered 
with hundreds of squashy purple sleeping bags."  These items last a 
while, certainly overnight in the case of the sleeping bags.  

Lupin conjures a splint and Sirius conjures manacles, which last 
quite a while.  McGonagall conjures a fan for Ernie to use to blow 
NHN around after he's petrified.

As for the Weasleys being unable to solve their financial problems 
with magic, this puzzles me also, because it is apparently possible 
to conjure food.  In "Rita Skeeter's Scoop":

"Dumbledore, closing the door behind Harry, Ron, and Hermione, 
drawing out his wand, and twiddling it; a revolving tea tray appeared 
in midair along with a plate of cakes."

This leaves me filled with questions.  Why can't Lupin conjure up new 
robes if Dumbledore can conjure sleeping bags and Bill can conjure 
tablecloths?  Why buy food at all?  Why doesn't Mrs. Weasley conjure 
up a new bedspread for Ron without a hole in it?  Why doesn't Mr. 
Weasley have the kids save their money and instead treat them all to 
conjured omnioculars, as the omnioculars only have to last a few 
hours during the Quiddich World Cup?  Why should Arthur Weasley buy 
dress robes at all instead of conjuring them out of thin air as 
needed?  

Earlier, we had considered the idea that a limitation on conjuring is 
that you can't conjure something for yourself to use, but you can 
conjure things for others.  This works some of the time, as most 
conjuring examples above are done for the benefit of someone else.  
But Bill certainly eats off of the tablecloth he conjures, and 
Dumbledore probably could eat the tea and cakes he conjures.  So I'm 
stumped.

So can every scarcity of resources problem be solved with the wave of 
a wand?  So far, I can't find many convincing reasons in canon why 
they can't be.

Cindy (who gets crotchety when confronted with loose ends)