Wizard/Muggle "Radar"

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 108823

Siriusly Snapey Susan (I think) wrote:
[SSS: Yup, it was me!]
>>>I'm one of the ones whose pet peeve is people assuming MOLLY will
likely betray the Order because of her love for her children...but
who seem to believe Arthur is immune from this! I feel that *any*
person who deeply loves another is susceptible to this kind of
blackmail.<<<

Janet Anderson replied:
>> Whereas, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I believe that *if* Molly 
were to betray the Order it would not simply be "because of her love 
for her children." It would be because her particular manifestation 
of "her love for her children" makes her take too narrow and limited 
a view. This is best exemplified by her insisting on protecting the 
children and denying them (and Harry) access to important 
information, even when it might be beneficial to the greater good, 
i.e. the Second Wizarding War. Remember, she didn't want Harry to 
know the (alleged) backstory about Sirius when they thought he was a 
deranged criminal who was stalking Harry!<< 

HunterGreen responded:
> But not only she was guilty of this. Dumbledore, McGonagal, Fudge 
> (although not ESE!Fudge), and possibly Lupin all were aware of the 
> situation and chose not to warn Harry as well. Arthur was the only 
> one who had any sense. 


SSSusan:
Janet, that helps to have you explain that it's the PARTICULAR 
manifestation of her love for her children/for others that makes her 
a point of vulnerability in your mind.  And that's an interesting 
point, Hunter, that there were several who chose to not inform Harry, 
though I suspect that for Janet [eeek--speaking for you!] it's the 
combination of not wanting to tell him crucial information *combined* 
with her great love that speaks to her "style of love"... and that 
that style is the weakness?  [Have I got that right?]


Janet continued:
>>I believe it is possible that if her children were threatened by 
Voldemort, she wouldn't stop to consider things like the fact that 
Voldemort's word is worthless, that he's capable of kidnapping and 
killing someone and *then* demanding ransom or information, or even 
that "threatened men live long." She might just fold.<<
 
HunterGreen:
> Having a narrow and overprotective stance of your children doesn't 
> necessarily make you stupid though. In that situation I think its 
> more likely that she would freak out and demand that her children 
> stay in order headquarters (or under the watchful eye of her, 
> Arthur or a capable adult wizard) 24 hours a day. I think her 
> paranoia is extreme enough that if she did make some sort of deal 
> for her children's lives she'd worry herself to death about it not 
> working out. I don't think she's capable of trusting something like 
> that. (my mother is actually a lot like Molly, and I know that 
> nothing will make the worrying stop).


SSSusan:
I guess it's all in how *rational* or *irrational* one takes Molly to 
be.  WOULD she be capable of stopping to consider?  WOULD she think 
ahead & decide to show her concern by imposing lock-down?  Tough call.


Janet: 
>>The thing about Arthur is that he *does* see the big picture -- if 
he didn't, he wouldn't still be poor and working in an office the 
size of a broom closet, when he could improve his situation with a 
little short-term schmoozing around the Ministry of Magic and 
downplaying his pro-Muggle stance. He won't compromise, he won't 
fold, and he knows what evil is capable of. (Why, yes, I do admire 
Arthur. He reminds me of my own father.)<<


SSSusan:
*THIS* is what I wanted to draw out of someone who feels Molly is 
different from Arthur!  Up to this point, I'd seen no evidence, no 
canon anecdotes, presented which would demonstrate how they are 
different or how their reactions to a blackmail-by-threatening-loved-
one situation might be different.  I'm still not sure I agree, but I 
appreciate your explanation of why you believe Arthur wouldn't cave.
 

Hunter had replied: 
> I like Arthur a lot too (in fact he's one of my favorite 
> characters), but all those things you say about him seeing the 
> bigger picture and not trying to schmooze his way to the top by 
> compromising his values can apply to Molly to (by implication). She 
> supports all of those descisons, despite it making life a lot 
> harder for her.

SSSusan:
Again, I think Hunter & Janet are looking at two characters and 
drawing two different pictures of them, seeing their motivations or 
actions somewhat differently.  The difficulty for me is that imo we 
haven't seen ENOUGH of them--particularly of Arthur--for me to feel 
100% confident in saying "he won't fold" or "she will fold" or "she 
won't fold" or....  

Hunter says Molly supports all Arthur's decisions and so she might be 
able to see the bigger picture, too.  I guess the question, though, 
is *in the heat of the moment* when a child has been taken, would she 
stop to consult Arthur & think about the bigger picture?  I suspect 
that Janet is arguing that NO, she would not.  Hunter is saying YES, 
she might well be able to.  I'm saying, "She might not be able 
to...but I'm not yet convinced that Arthur would be able to either."



SSSusan wrote:
>>>Anyway, to your question. IS there any kind of "wizard detecting" 
or "muggle detecting" ability inherent in witches & wizards? Not that 
I'm aware of. But did I miss something in the books? Is this 
something Aurors are capable of?<<<
 
Janet replied:
>>Well, there's one case where muggle detecting seems to occur: 
when Harry does magic and gets nasty letters for it [snip] But I 
don't know how they could tell, any more than I understand the entire 
magic detection system that's in use with Harry.<<
 
HunterGreen:
> That seems to indicate there is some sort of magic 'radar', or 
> perhaps wizards between the ages of 11 and 17 are 'flagged' somehow 
> (because they can tell when children in wizarding families use 
> magic, which would seem impossible if they are around adult wizards 
> all the time....or maybe they can't tell, which is sort of unfair 
> for muggleborns). That may be the reason that Fudge knew there were 
> no other wizards living near Harry....they keep track of where 
> wizarding families live.


SSSusan:
All I can say to this is YUCK.  Seems awfully Big Brotherish to me.  
Even if the Ministry has means of doing this, I still wonder whether 
an *individual* would have the ability/mechanism/device necessary.


Hunter:
> As for wizards being able to tell a muggle from a wizard, there's 
> nothing in the books indicating either way. Personally, I think 
> that if a wizard disguised themself as a muggle and strolled up to 
> another wizard calling themselves such, that the wizard would be 
> able to tell. They might be able to 'sense' magical ability ....

SSSusan:
And I tend to think the opposite.  Isn't it fun?? :-)


Siriusly Snapey Susan