I'm not sure this is the right forum, but... about the mysteries FAQ

[psychic_serpent]

No: HPFGUIDX 42890

You propose some intriguing solutions to some of these problems.  I, 
too, don't really think of some of these things as "mysteries" so 
much as things which JKR hasn't gone out of her way to explain as 
they're outside the scope of the story.  (Although I classify a 
couple of them as Flints.)

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marephraim" <htfulcher at c...> wrote:
> "How does Hagrid "fly" to the Hut on the Sea? On a broomstick? If 
> so, where is it the next morning? Superman style?"
> 
> Maybe Dumbledore apparated him (a kind of flying?)

All evidence in the books says to me that Apparition only works on 
the person doing the Apparating.  I believe that this, for instance, 
is one possible reason that Lily cannot Apparate with Harry to 
safety when Voldemort attacks them at Godric's Hollow.  I believe 
you can only take inanimate objects with you when you are 
Apparating.  (Hence, you could take luggage on a trip, for 
instance,  as long as it's not Luggage as Terry Pratchett defines 
it...but I digress.)

Another possible reason that Lily didn't Apparate to safety is that 
anti-Apparition spells could have been put on the premises, so it 
was impossible to Apparate or Disapparate there, as at Hogwarts.  It 
would be sensible to have a security measure like this in place, in 
addition to the Fidelius Charm.  There is nothing in Harry's PoA 
memories of that night to indicate that Voldemort Apparated to the 
cottage; he could have Apparated outside the range of such anti-
Apparition spells (if they were in fact used) and walked to the 
Potter home.

> "Hagrid and Harry take the boat that the Dursleys used to get to 
> the Hut on the Sea in Chapter 3 of SS. How then do the Dursleys 
> get to land?" 
> 
> With some difficulty. They would have to wait for the man who 
> rented it to them to show up, etc..

You are probably right.  The other possible answer is that I believe 
JKR thought swimming to the mainland would have served the Dursleys 
right. <g>  In other words, I don't think JKR cares a fig for the 
Dursleys and doesn't care to communicate how they managed.  The 
important part of the story is Harry.  (Although, to play devil's 
advocate, JKR might have had Vernon get quite shirty with Harry 
later about them being stranded.  Seems a little like a missed 
opportunity.  Vernon certainly wouldn't have been pleased about 
this.)

> "How can Sirius Black apparently openly own his flying motorcycle 
> and yet Mr. Weasley's flying Ford Anglia is illegal? "
> 
> When was the law passed? There is a comment in CoS to the effect 
> that Mr Weasley himself wrote the law in question.

I think this is the first thing you've mentioned that qualifies as a 
Flint.  From what I've seen, there is abundant evidence that there 
are many, many things that hadn't occurred to JKR when she wrote the 
first book, and when she wrote them later, they couldn't really be 
fully reconciled with the first book.  Anything that violates the 
statues against charming Muggles objects--like the motorcycle--or 
children performing magic out of school--like Hermione's 
experimental spells--falls into this category.  I believe JKR simply 
hadn't thought about these wizarding laws when she started the 
series.  

> "What was the size of this motorcycle? It was described as a giant 
> motorcycle at one point, but if so, how did Sirius ride it? If it 
> wasn't giant-sized, how would Hagrid have ridden it? "
> 
> A magic motorcycle might change size to accomodate the driver.

Now THAT'S an original explanation!  I rather like that one.  If 
someone else has suggested it, I haven't seen it.  The other 
possible answer is that JKR has said herself (and her Flints are 
usually testimony to this) that she's terrible with numbers.  She 
describes Hagrid as being about ten feet tall, IIRC.  I don't think 
she's really thought about the ways in which a ten-foot-tall man 
would interact with the world.  She also says his feet are like baby 
dolphins and his hands are like the lids of dust-bins.  This is a 
very strangely proportioned person, you have to admit.  I put it 
down to her problems with numbers and shrug over it, frankly.

> "Hermione indicates on the Hogwarts Express that she has already 
> tried a few simple spells for practice. Why didn't she get a
> letter from the Ministry of Magic as Harry did in CoS? "

See the above about the things JKR hadn't thought of when she 
started the HP books.

> Perhaps the rule only applies after one has enrolled in the 
> school. 

That may come close if there is any explanation at all.  After all, 
Harry was doing accidental magic for many years.  Perhaps they 
really DON'T get on students, especially in Muggle environments, 
until after they've started school.  Surely Hermione was doing some 
magic unintentionally before the age of eleven.  Although, 
personally, I also subscribe to the idea that someone has to report 
the student in question, that the Ministry isn't just monitoring for 
magic in general.  No reporting, no letter from the IUMO.  That 
level of monitoring would be quite a job.

> "How does Dobby (then the Malfoys' house elf) visit Harry in the 
> hospital wing after the Quidditch match? "
> 
> This one has to be a real error. Consider when Dobby visits Harry 
> in the Hospital Wing. There is a snap! and he's gone....

I don't understand why this is considered a mystery.  Dobby visits 
Harry because he has obviously been hanging about Hogwarts.  He 
charmed the Bludger to go after Harry (that's why he was in the 
hospital wing).  This is all in the books, plus the fact that the 
anti-Apparition thing doesn't seem to apply to house-elves (probably 
what they do isn't really defined as Apparating).

> In SS, Harry's glasses are supposedly "taped" together in
> the middle because they'd been broken by Dudley so frequently. In 
> CoS, Harry breaks his glasses (which appear to be whole) when he 
> lands in Knockturn Alley. Were his glasses repaired at some point 
> during SS
 
> By Hermione after the yellow scabbers charm fails (at least in the 
> movie this is so, although I don't find it in the UK version of 
> PS).

If they were, I think JKR simply felt it was too inconsequential to 
mention it.  There's no reason to assume that he couldn't have 
worked out a way to fix them himself once he started school, or 
another student could have fixed them for him.

> "Why would Lupin not transform when the boggart turns into the 
> moon? If it's because it's not really the moon, then why does 
> Harry hear his parents' dying moments and faint when the boggart 
> turns into a dementor?"

> Trauma? Boggart attempts to frighten you. Lupin would be 
> frightened of the full moon but not physically transforemed by it. 
> Harry, on the other hand, because he's been affected by 
> Voldemort's attack, mentally 'relives' an experience he would not 
> otherwise remember.

I think you're on to something.  I never thought of Lupin 
transforming when seeing a mere facsimile of the moon, as it wasn't 
really the moon.  It is true, however, that Harry reacts to a fake 
dementor as one would to a real one.  The difference, as you noted, 
is probably that one thing transforms you physically, regardless of 
whether you believe in it, and the other relies to a certain extent 
on you having a psychological reaction to it.

I also have no idea why it's considered a mystery why Lupin reacted 
to Harry's reaction to butterbeer.  I was never struck by that; it 
may be available in bottles, but it's possible that it's not 
available that way at the Three Broomsticks, that you'd have to go 
elsewhere (specifically, someplace students are not usually allowed 
to go).

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb