Magic Detection

[Paul Snow]

No: HPFGUIDX 45025

jodel at aol.com writes:
>
>Well if there IS a pattern I wish someone would explain it to ME. Because it 
>completely escapes me. I am growing into the interpretation that the whole 
>"magical monitoring" concept is a rather shabby device that Rowling is 
>jerking around and rewriting to suit whatever she wants it to be at any given 
>moment. And that's pretty much my point. Because it doesn't seem to be at all 
>consistent as far as the information that we'vwe been given to date goes. 

I see a pattern in all of this, because I see the "reasonable restriction
of underage magic" as equivalent to restrictions on underage drinking (at 
least in the US).  Underage drinkers are only in trouble with the
authorities when they are caught by the authorities, or turned into the
authorities.  To me, the "monitoring" of underage witches and wizards
would be a useful myth to encourage compliance, but a myth nonetheless.

>
>If we look at the evidence so far;
>
>Book 1. For ten years Harry has been producing intermittent but highly 
>noticable spontaneous magical "breakthroughs" and the Ministry of magic does 
>*nothing* about any of them.

I see this as "passive magic", not "active magic".  Harry does not know
that it even is magic, and is explained away by him and others, i.e.
Petunia saying about the sweater, "It must have shrunk in the wash."
None of it, with the exception of the snake at the zoo incident, warrants
covering up by the Magical Reversal squad, so no MoM intervention.

>
>Book 2. One floating pudding and Harry gets a nasty-gram threatening 
>expulsion within five minutes of the incident. Furthermore, that floating 
>pudding was produced wandlessly (House Elves are forbidden to have wands, 
>remember?), how did the MOM come to the conclusion that this wasn't just 
>another breakthrough? 

This was a planned frame up.  How Dobby pulled it off we are not told
explicitly, but he intended for Harry to get "caught" to prevent him from
being able to return to Hogwarts.  We aren't told what Dobby's exact plan
was with this, but I have two ideas on what his plan was:

Plan 1: Although the MoM letter was only a warning (and you probably don't
need proof for a warning letter), Dobby seems to know enough about Harry's
situation to guess the Dursley's reaction. Dobby intended that the
Dursley's see the MoM letter and counted on the Dursley's to try to
prevent Harry from returning to Hogwarts.

Plan 2: Dobby gave the MoM "proof" of the violation and thought that Harry
would be expelled, or at least suspended for the year, from Hogwarts.

>From Dobby's other plans to keep Harry from returning to Hogwarts (or to
get him to leave Hogwarts), I'm guessing Plan 2 is the more accurate one.

The MoM letter implies that they detected the magic through some kind of
magical monitoring.  This is an old parent trick; not telling your
children how you found out about them doing something wrong so that they
believe you have ways of finding information beyond your actual means.

>
>Book 3. Harry produces another and fairly spectacular breakthrough 
>(wandlessly again, I might add), The Magical Reversal squad, complete with 
>obliviators show up within the hour. Harry is reassured that no one seems to 
>hold this against him and his Aunt Marge doesn't remember a thing.
>

Harry is actively being monitored in the beginning of book 3 because of
Sirius' escape from Azkarban.  The monitoring is not close enough to
detect that he catches the Knight Bus, but it is close enough to detect
the loud disturbance at the Dursley's because of Aunt Marge's condition.
Unlike Harry's previous "passive magic" incidents, this one warrants
intervention from the MoM -- it is magic that needs to be reversed.  I
noticed, however, that only Aunt Marge (unaware of the WW) doesn't remeber
a thing about the incident. As a "passive magic" incident, it doesn't
warrant a warning or expulsion letter.  The way the the mood of the MoM
was at the time, however, I doubt that Harry would have gotten an
expulsion letter even if it was "active magic".

>Is it just me, or are these incidents totally inconsistent with one another? 
>What the hell is Rowling playing at? Huh?
>

I see the enforcement of the "reasonable restriction on underage magic"
being consistent with the enforcement of laws restricting underage
drinking.  I do not sense any overall monitoring of underage witches and
wizards, although Harry was definitely being monitored by the MoM when
Sirius was on the loose, had been spotted in the region, and Harry was
assumed to be his target.


Paul
(first post, I'd love to dig out some exact quotes, but since I can only
"read" the books in their audio format, skimming through them is
impossible, and it takes more time than I have tonight to listen to all
the chapters referred above to find exact quotes).