The Magic Quill and Infanticide

[davewitley]

No: HPFGUIDX 40929

> The Catlady wrote:
> 
> > JKR said in an interview long ago that there is a magic quill 
that 
> > writes down the name of every magic child born in the UK. Once a 
> > year, McGonagall looks in the quill's book for all the children 
> > that 'are' 11 that 'year' and addresses Hogwarts admission 
letters 
> > to them. 

Elkins replied:
> 
> This is yet another of those questions -- much like "how many 
> students at Hogwarts?" -- on which I tend to disbelieve the 
author's 
> answer as given in interview because it seems so difficult to 
> reconcile with my reading of the actual canon.  I'm not quite sure
> that I can believe that birth is when the name appears.

I think this depends on the way one imagines the process to operate 
after the name has appeared.
> 
> Aldrea:
> 
> > Hagrid's remark..something like "He's had his name down since he 
> > was a baby!"...would that be because of Harry's whole deflection 
> > thing agianst Voldie? 
> 
> That was certainly my [Elkins'] reading.  Hagrid says this as if it 
is not at 
> all *usual* for a child to have had their name down for Hogwarts 
> since birth. 

I'm not convinced of this.  Given the context (the Dursleys), Hagrid 
may merely be asserting what he sees as the prior claims of the 
magical world and, possibly, Harry's blood parents.

> The Catlady wrote:
> 
> > I am worried how such a system could deal with Muggle-born magic 
> > children who emigrated with their parents to UK after birth but 
> > before age 11.

Elkins again:

> Hmmm.  Well, it's a Magical Quill, isn't it?  It has a mystic 
ability 
> to detect magical children.  So I'm willing to accept that it might 
> also be able to just *know* which magical children would be living 
in 
> Britain at the age of eleven and which would not.
> 
> It's a bit creepy, that, admittedly, since it raises some troubling 
> questions of predestination and free will -- but then, so do 
> Trelawney's "true prophecies." 

I don't think it need be like that.  If it is purely a magic 
detector, then no question of free will need arise.  Coercion may, if 
parents have no choice but to obey McGonagall's letter.

We don't actually know what happens about children who have 
immigrated, emigrated or died in the interim.  It's clear from the 
example of Lupin, and implied by Malfoy (though he may be wrong) that 
a degree of choice *is* involved.
> 
> This touches on the question of why families are not notified the 
> instant that their child's name goes down in that book, to save 
them 
> the apprehension over their child's eventual future.

It seems entirely in keeping with the WW way (and the Muggle British 
way) of doing things for such considerations to play no part in 
Hogwarts planning.

I assume the abilities of the Quill could be duplicated, but it could 
be beyond the means of most families.  Hence the Longbottoms' more 
rough and ready approach to the issue.

Elkins quoted me:

> David suggested a rather more ugly reason, though, why the staff of 
> Hogwarts might not want to let parents know about their children's 
> magical status.
> 
> He wrote:
> 
> > IOW, most magic reflects the intention of the wizard or witch. 
This 
> > is apparently not the case with birth, in the sense that neither 
> > wizards nor Muggles have any way of influencing whether their 
> > offspring are magical. (It has occurred to me that the reason 
> > Squibs are rare might be infanticide: what do you suppose the
> > Malfoys would do if they had a Squib baby? The Fudges?)
> 
> Well, if they could tell from the beginning that a child was a 
Squib, 
> then I think that many families probably *would* leave it on a 
> mountainside to die, or (if we were talking about the Malfoys) 
> possibly even use it in some nasty Dark ritual.  At the very least, 
I 
> suspect that many of those "Fine Old Wizarding Families" would put 
a 
> non-magical child up for Muggle adoption -- and then try to hide 
the 
> evidence that the child had ever even existed.
> 
> But I don't get the impression that most magical children first 
> manifest their talent early enough in life for this to be a 
feasible 
> policy.  

Again, this might depend on the resources the family could bring to 
bear.

I think infanticide *is* probably an elephant I have dragged into the 
drawing room (or was it the dining room? I forget.), rather than one 
there already.  That said, what about Ron's remark that without 
Muggle intermarriage and Muggleborns, wizards would have died out?  
It occurs to me, however, that the Longbottoms, at least, valued 
Neville enough to be moderately careful with him: if they (and other 
wizards) really felt that the only good squib is a dead one, they 
would just throw all newborns out the window and keep those that 
bounced.

One last blast from Elkins:

> JKR has also intimated that people can sometimes show their first 
> signs of magic quite late in life.  

This does pose a lot more problems not only for the Quill as an 
operational device but also for the whole idea that either you are a 
wizard or you are a Muggle, which seems one of the fundamental planks 
on which the whole series is built.

David