Magic Outside of School and FLIRTIAC

[elfundeb at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 36843

In a message dated 3/20/2002 10:43:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
huntleyl at mssm.org writes:

> Of course, they aren't allowed to use magic outside of school -- 

Well, after Elkins' fabulous still-life (which I'm deeply contemplating with 
my own memory-charmed mind), the scope of the Reasonable Restriction of 
Underage Sorcery seems quite trivial, but I'm working on a possible new 
Snapetheory to which the legality of his learning all those curses before he 
showed up to Hogwarts may (or may not) be relevant.  But the prohibition on 
underage magic seems a tad haphazard in its application -- may indeed be a 
bit flinty -- and the recent posts about Dobby have prompted me to subject 
the law and its application to a little analysis.

First, the prohibition seems to apply very haphazardly.  Dobby uses a 
hovering charm and Harry gets a warning owl from the very intimidating 
Mafalda Hopkirk of the Improper Use of Magic Office stating very specifically 
that underage wizards are not allowed to perform spells outside of school and 
risk expulsion for doing so.  He also runs afoul of a Statute of Secrecy 
prohibiting magical activity that risks notice by Muggles.  That all sounds 
very reasonable.  But others are performing plenty of magic outside of 
school.  With all the charmed wands and Ton-Tongue Toffees that the Weasley 
Twins have been busy concocting (not to mention the teddy bear they 
transfigured when they were 5), why haven't they been expelled?  Doesn't each 
one require a separate spell?  Molly worries about the Improper Use of Magic 
Office coming after them, but they've gotten away with quite a bit.  But the 
real shocker is that even follow-the-rules Hermione claims on the train to 
Hogwarts in PS/SS that she's tried a few simple spells and they all worked.  
I can't imagine that she'd have mentioned this if those spells had resulted 
in a threat of expulsion from Mafalda, so she must have gotten away with it, 
or the prohibition didn't apply to her.  Finally, the prohibition does not 
seem to apply to accidental magic.  No warning arrived when Harry regrew his 
hair, or changed the teacher's hair color, or set the boa constrictor on 
Dudley, though these actions risked notice by Muggles and should have been 
specifically targeted.  How to reconcile all this?

I have a few theories:

Theory 1.  Though Harry's letter does not say so (because he lives in a 
Muggle home) the restriction does not apply to children living in wizarding 
households performing magic at home, where they are presumed to be under the 
supervision of their parents.  This explanation is not entirely satisfactory 
as it does not explain accidental magic.  Maybe accidental magic by Harry and 
other pre-Hogwarts children in Muggle households is just handled by the 
Accidental Magic Reversal Squad.  It also doesn't explain how Hermione 
avoided censure (and I don't think the supervision of Muggle parents would be 
satisfactory because one of the purposes of the prohibition is to prevent 
children attempting magic they aren't ready for that will result in 
unintended consequences), unless after buying her books in Diagon Alley she 
settled down at Florean Fortescue's for a quick charms lesson over a huge ice 
cream sundae.  Possible, but I think she would have tackled "Hogwarts - A 
History" first.  No, I think she did her practicing at home.  Maybe Hermione 
had a wizarding mentor, but more likely, IMO, her spells are just a Flint.

2.    The second option is that the Office of Improper Magic is a very small 
operation and poor Mafalda (and what few colleagues she may have -- I imagine 
one person per shift running this show) can't possibly keep track of all the 
magic being performed by children all over Britain.  So she ignores all the 
wizarding households and concentrates on magic occurring in Muggle homes and 
public places.  But this still doesn't explain how Hermione got away with it. 

3.    And there must be a broom-flying, Quidditch-playing exception too, as 
long as the Muggles don't see you.

The next problem is how Mafalda figures out who is performing the magic -- 
assuming, as I expect, that Arthur Weasley did not get an owl from Mafalda on 
the mistaken assumption that Harry was cutting Dudley's tongue down to size 
and cleaning up the Dursleys' fireplace. -- though it's possible that such an 
owl could have arrived after Arthur left.  My theory here is that Mafalda 
uses a magnified type of  Marauder's Map which pinpoints the magic activity 
as well as the persons present at that location.

This still doesn't explain, however, why Harry got charged with Dobby's 
magic.  After all, wouldn't the map show Mafalda that Dobby was in the 
kitchen with Harry?  The answer to that, of course, is that the map only 
shows humans.  Dobby's not human, so he's not on the map.  Mafalda sees only 
Harry and a Hovering Charm in the kitchen and five Muggles in the dining 
room.  So the warning goes out (though you'd think the office would have more 
sense than to deliver it in front of the Muggles . . . .)

And now for the final conclusion:  Assuming that the MWPP Marauder's Map 
works like Mafalda's map (perhaps a large assumption but I'll assume anyway), 
Mrs. Norris' appearance on the Marauder's Map indicates that she is indeed 
human.  And now I ask Captain Tabouli, will this suffice as a ticket to the 
FLIRTIAC dinghy?  Would it help if I promised that my Snapetheory would 
include LOLLIPOPS?  If I brought refreshments?

Debbie


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