Squibs have genes to do magic?

[Miles]

No: HPFGUIDX 146451

> Miles:
> I think this statement and the discussion about it has no basis in
> canon or in JKRs statements. We do not know *anything* about the
> nature of magic in Potterverse. We do not know why people are
> magical and others are not, we do not know anything about
> magical "theory" or the nature of spells and their power.

> So it's pure speculation to assume that genetics play any role for
> humans being magic or not.

> Jen: Right or wrong, JKR introduced the concept of magic being due to
> a dominant gene as pointed out by CH3ed in this thread. Next time I'll
> include the relevant quote so it won't appear to be my own
> speculation.

Miles:
Facing this, I have to apologise to those who discussed "magic genes" and to
blame JKR instead ;).

Really, her weak point is the lack of a theoretical background for
Potterverse. She is working very careful with the story she wants to tell,
including plot details. But unlike other fantasy writers (like Tolkien) she
never cared very much about a background that is not an explicit part of the
books.
We came across several .... well, strange details like "spells are Latin" or
wizards who accept the borders of Muggle countries (wizards of
Liechtenstein...).

Anyway, this is bad for fanfic writers and surgical readers like Redhen. I
just enjoy the books, so there is some intellectual joy to find and discuss
JKRs mistakes like this "dominant genes" absurdity (we all like to be
smarter than other people, don't we?), but for me it is just a footnote and
no major defect of the Harry Potter series.

Miles