Underage Magic at the Weasley's (and in general)

[Alex]

No: HPFGUIDX 53648

aesob wrote:
> <snip> but the tracking system that maria_kirilenko 
> proposes is just as hypothetic and problematic as my idea that it's 
> just a poorly conceived plot element that JKR's bending. 
> 
>maria_kirilenko replied:
> Hypothetic, yes. Problematic - I don't know, but it's not in 
> contradiction with canon. See, this theory was created in order to 
> provide an explanation for the problem you brought up - and it does 
> just that.
> 
> Location-tracked!Spells is a valid theory that is derived from canon, 
> and while there's a choice between believing in it and thinking that 
> it's just a "poorly conceived plot element" invented just to harass 
> Harry - well, I'll pick the theory any day. JKR's writing isn't 
> sloppy, IMO.

The theory is ok, but it's just that. I guess I'm just more of a pessimist! JKR's 
writing is not as sloppy as other series authors (the Wizard of Oz books 
certainly come to mind), but there are many other series that are just so much 
tighter (Lloyd Alexander's Prydain chronicle and even C.S. Lewis' Narnia).  
She has made mistakes, and I have to believe there are others that she's 
covering up by bending the rules later down the road (even if she covers them 
with valid explanations that fit into canon).

Again, I'm not attacking anyone, but realistically, we all make mistakes, and 
JKR wrote books 2, 3 & 4 so quickly, there are bound to be errors. I think one 
reason that book 5 took so long to write is that she was being more careful 
with the details because she knows the nitpickers are watching so closely. I 
know she wrote an outline with book 1 that plans out the entire series, but 
she's said in interviews (sorry I don't have time to find the citation, but I don't 
think I dreamt it) that she leaves the details to when she's actually writing it so 
it's not too tedious. So she is making much of it up as she goes along.

Another thing I have to wonder, especially with JKR's level of control 
(especially with her success and wealth) how much editing the editors are 
suggesting on book 5. If they can turn over a 255,000 word book from writer to 
the bookshelves in 5 months, JKR's doing pretty much all of the work herself, 
including nitpicking the details, and she's human and can make mistakes...

aesob:
> >>>If underage wizards were 
> to practice magic at home with other adults nearby (in basements or 
> their own  rooms behind closed doors), they could still be causing 
> serious harm to 
> themselves, siblings, pets, etc. The idea that the MoM could track 
> the rough 
> location of spells being cast still has frightening big brotherly 
> consequences 
> (perhaps more so than just having a way of tracking underage 
> wizards). >>>

maria_kirilenko:
> You are right, the tracking is scary. But, evidently, they are able 
> to do it, as we see from the letter that Harry got in the beginning 
> of PoA. So how is this damaging to the theory?

Obviously some kind of tracking is taking place. Whether it's tracking a 
specific wizard or tracking magic occuring in a place where it should not be 
taking place, is irrelevant, I think both ideas are problematic, and they open 
up too many other cans of worms, like in the below discussion:

aesob:
> >>>One 
> would think if there were a way to track magic like this, they could 
> find out 
> where any known DE or even Voldemort is by tracking their trail of 
> magic...>>>

maria_kirilenko:
> Actually, they don't really need to. DE's leave the Dark Mark when 
> they go about *marauding*. <eg>
> 
> Another explanation is that the MoM only monitors the houses where 
> students live, which fits canon better. 

Yes, but if they can monitor students, why not suspected dark wizards, too? 
We know of no civil rights code in the WW to prevent this, and this would 
seem an ideal way for aurors and other "police-types" to crack down on dark 
wizards...

The ability to track magic, whether it's wizard or location specific, underage or 
adult, the ability to do so is very powerful, and potentially very problematic. 
When Harry gets his letter in CoS, it's pretty darn quick. If the ministry is 
tracking hundreds or thousands of wizards, that's a lot of work to go through, 
tracking magic logs or however it's done, then sending a letter off. If there is 
an ability to track magic usage, wouldn't they be more concerned with 
potional dark magic violations than someone levitating a cake?

That's why I think it was an idea that JKR came up with to advance the plot, 
but the ramifications of this ability were not fully thought through, so it's 
gathering dust.

It would make much more sense is there really wasn't a restriction on 
underage magic, if it was just some elaborate scheme to protect Harry, to 
know what's happening at the Dursley's, but why get him in trouble for 
something he didn't do? It advances the plot and shows us that Dobby is 
mischevous, makes us feel sorry for Harry but leaves many questions about 
whether there's really a way to track magic for others...

Have we exhausted this thread yet?

> Also, Taryn asked:
> Y'know, I've heard the Aunt Marge incident brought up in discussions 
> of the ban of underage magic multiple times and I /still/ can't 
> understand why. Harry didn't purposely break the law. It was an 
> involuntary action, yet people have repeatedly referred to him as 
> being guilty. >_>
> 
> maria_kirilenko:
> Well, I assume that the MoM's "tracking system" (or intelligence, as 
> it's called in the letter - I don't quite know what to make of that 
> word) can't tell whether a spell was involuntary or not. Harry did 
> magic when he wasn't supposed to - and the law is clear on that point.

Yep, involuntarily breaking the law is still no excuse for breaking it. It was 
involuntary, but involuntary manslaughter is still just about as bad as first 
degree murder. Involuntary or not, Harry was guilty.

~~aesob