[HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's shortest stay at Privet Drive

[Laura Ingalls Huntley]

No: HPFGUIDX 93461

Del:
> One possibility is that DD or someone of the Order comes and takes
> him somewhere, to teach him (and Ron and Hermione) a very useful
> skill : how to Apparate. Think of the number of times in OoP where
> some kind of escort had to be given to Harry to go from some place
> to another. Think of what would have happened if Harry could simply
> have Apparated to Grimmauld Place and found Sirius safe there. Think
> of how things would have turned in the DoM if the kids could simply
> have Apparated away. I don't think DD would care about the Trio not
> being of age. They are obviously talented enough (the DA proved it)
> to master even such a difficult trick as Apparating, the War is on,
> and the kids need to be independent and mobile.

*shamelessly threadjacks this post* Mwhaha.  Ha.

Earlier in the day . . . or was it yesterday?  Or . . . was it a couple 
weeks ago at the Hog's Head? *scratches head*

*Anyway*, I recently followed a thread which discussed wandless magic 
and its relation to a wizard's power and/or magical ability.  (You 
know, it think it *was* at the Hog's Head)

The general consensus (which fits with *my* perception of what canon 
tells us, anyway) was that while untrained (or perhaps just v. 
emotional) wizards can do "unfocused", wandless magic, in order to do 
*real*, intentional spellwork without a wand, one must have have some 
serious innate Mojo (and perhaps also an exceptionally focused mind).

Then, however, Apparation was brought up.  Apparation is wandless 
magic, isn't it?  Shouldn't it be quite difficult then?  Furthermore, 
even if "wandless" does not equal "difficult", most posters (like 
myself and Del) automatically assume it must be at least fairly 
high-level magic.  Which makes sense, doesn't it?  I mean, kids must 
not be allowed to do it for a reason -- and then there is also that 
nasty business of splinching.

Yet, I was rereading PS/SS today, and noticed something:

"The train pulled out of the station.  Harry wanted to watch Hagrid 
until he was out of sight; he rose in his seat and pressed his nose 
against the window, but he blinked and Hagrid had gone." - PS/SS Us 
ed., pg. 87

*Hagrid* can apparate!  HAGRID!  Hagrid, who got kicked out of Hogwarts 
in his third year, whose wand is in pieces in a pink umbrella, who has 
arguably shown less magical aptitude than pre-OotP Neville.

Aside from all that, I can hardly imagine the MoM letting licensing the 
guy to Apparate if they won't even allow him to have a wand.  
Conclusion?  Dumbledore must have (as Del suggests he will for H/R/H) 
taught Hagrid in secret.

Problem?  So . . . is Apparation difficult or not?  If it's *not* 
difficult, then what does that say about wandless magic in general?

And, can anyone else imagine Hagrid having the ability to perform 
*other* intentional wandless magicks?  They *are* meant to be 
difficult, aren't they?

My own personal take on this contradiction is that Apparating must be 
in some way *different* than performing most other spells (this is 
supported by the fact that one does not need to speak a spell to do it) 
and therefore it is not connected to one's ability to do other wandless 
magicks.  Also, it must *not* be particularly hard, as Hagrid (and, 
indeed, the majority of wizards) can do it.

So why is it restricted to those "of age"?  I don't think the law has 
all *that* much to do with the safety or ability of the wizard 
performing an Apparation, but rather with the fact that the MoM is 
afraid of what would happen if children were allowed access to that 
kind of independence, which is understandable, IMO.

Of course, this is just my working theory -- I welcome any other ideas 
on Apparation, wandless magic, and the law.

Laura

P. S. What *is* the plural of 'magic', anyway?  As it's 'magicked' and 
'magicking' when we're talking about the verb forms, I've always 
assumed that 'magicks' is right (okay, I know that's not the strongest 
argument).  However, Merriam-Webster.com was silent on the subject, and 
my spell-checker said *both* 'magics' and 'magicks' were wrong. 
*puzzled*