[HPforGrownups] intro & magic/technology question

[Lady Macbeth]

No: HPFGUIDX 71550

Urghiggi Says:
>>> Here is a question I've been thinking about -- fundamentalist Christians
(I'm
the latter but not the former) often object to the supposed occult/satanic
milieu
of the HP books. One of my best arguments against this opinion has been the
oft-stated comment (think it was actually from Chuck Colson) that the magic
in
HP is primarily technological in nature. <<<

Lady Macbeth:
It is very much so.   I can't comment on either Fundamentalist or Christian
or both views - I'm none of the above.  However, being pagan and a magic
user, it is very apparent to me that JK's books in no way teach magic,
encourage use of magic, &etc as are often expounded in anti-Potter
literature.  On the contrary, she seems to use a solid blend of "fairytale
magic" (hence the sparkly dust and lights when the wand is waved for many
spells) and her own considerations on how such magic would work practically.
In many respects it comes close to the magic used by some traditions, but it
is in no way the same.

Urghiggi Says:
>>> In addition -- with respect to the notion of magic being evil because it
is a way
of tapping into dark outside forces to amass power --  there seem to be
definite constraints (either legal or technical) on the use of magic to
manufacture matter in the world of HP. You can turn something into
something else (if you're talented) -- but you can't seem to make something
of
nothing, and (most notably) you can't seem to create wealth via magic.<<<

Lady Macbeth:
And here you've touched on one of the more "real magic" aspects of the magic
in JK's world.  This concept falls both in the realm of practical magic and
physics - matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed; the avenue by
which such matter is changed is often the key.  Thus, the need for the
Philosopher's Stone to turn lead into gold - no other method has been found
in either magic or science to do so.

Professor McGonagall demonstrates very readily in her class that some things
CAN be transfigured, such as animals into wine goblets.  But, that means
that someone has to first have the object to be transfigured and be willing
to sacrifice it for the item that it becomes.  As far back as Chamber of
Secrets we see that the Weasleys "always manage somehow" even when they're
in a tight pinch for expensive school books.  The money that bought things
for the household obviously went for books, so those household items had to
come from somewhere - even using thrift store bargains and hand-me-downs,
things wear out.  We see that Molly does a lot of knitting - it's all
together possible that some things are given up in favor of others - garden
tools become knitting needles in the winter and the like.  Wealthy families
wouldn't worry about such give and take - just buy what they need, throw it
at the house elves, and know that the household needs are taken care of.

On the subject of money, that brings up the point of why people don't
transfigure things into Galleons or other money.  It's a good question on
the surface, but when applied to the Muggle would one could easily ask "Why
don't people with good printers and fancy paper just print their own money?"
They do, if they're willing to take the risk of getting caught
counterfeiting money, a federal offense here in the U.S.  I would imagine
that Gringotts has a similar safeguard for their money.  While they don't
have special papers or watermarks, they do have an abundance of staff -
enough that Bill even found a desk job when he was needed back home.  With
their size and organization, they may even have people just FOR checking to
make sure none of the money that goes through their bank is something else
that was transfigured.  With similar laws about counterfeiting on the books,
it really wouldn't make it worth it for most people to go to the effort,
even if they could find enough stuff to transfigure.

-Lady Macbeth


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