[HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 170059

Ken:
You try to make it sound totally implausible but Neville was a 
late bloomer and someone, opinion seems divided between Filch and 
Figgy, is going to be a much, much later bloomer in DH according to
the author. Petunia could have gotten into her teen years without having
a magical moment.

Magpie:
I'm not so much "trying to make it sound impossible" (while you try to show
it's possible) in terms of whether or not it could happen as pointing out
that it takes an awful lot of explaining for not much of a payoff that I
can see.

Filch and Figg are Squibs and so start out with a different relationship to
magic than Muggles do. Muggles have no reason to ever show magic unless
they are not Muggles. Petunia has never done magic and "will never be able
to." She is not able to do magic.

Neville was a late bloomer in terms of getting more confident as he got
older, but his magic was there like everyone's else's the day he started
Hogwarts.  

Ken:
 Petunia didn't have to be frightened by a pub, she may
already have been frightened by Lily's magic. What frightened her
about the pub was not the pub but what being able to see the pub
implied. The pub is just one scenario that would allow her to realize she
was a witch without actively doing magic. Getting an invitation from 
Hogwarts without ever having performed magic would be another.
I honestly don't see how you can seriously suggest that *Petunia* is 
incapable of suppressing her magical gift. If *anyone* in this series could 
do this it would be Petunia. After all, Vernon and Petunia seemed to be
confident that they would be able to suppress Harry's talent for some 
reason.

Magpie:
Actually, I think Vernon seems confident and Petunia doesn't. When Harry
shows signs of magic Petunia seems resigned to it. Like when the sweater
starts to shrink she just gives up and uncharacteristically leaves him
alone. I know Petunia's a repressive person, and I couldn't say that she
*couldn't* manage to suppress her own magic even at age 10 from the first
if anyone could. But I'm not convinced anyone could at this point,
especially to the point that she somehow doesn't get a Hogwarts letter. 

> Magpie:
> And also the fact 
> that canon says that Petunia, as a Dursley, has not a drop of 
> magical blood must be just colorful language (even though in this 
> series "magical blood" is a very real thing) because Lily and 
> Petunia have the same blood. Except they get their blood from their 
> parents, who are Muggles. So the parents must have magical blood 
> too. Making the line "The Dursleys were what Wizards called Muggles 
> (not a drop of magical blood in their veins)" really colorful.
> 

Ken:

Well Petunia is an Evans not a Dursley but yeah, I think the drop of
blood comment could just be a rhetorical exaggeration in this case.
Petunia's blood is quite powerful magically according to canon, it 
is the source of Harry's protection at her home. Doesn't it strike you
as a little odd that a Muggle's blood could be so powerful? It is 
almost like a clue that is so obvious that we all miss it. I mean 
even if there is nothing more to it at all and Petunia is a Muggle
in exactly the way you define Muggle, then Lily's sacrifice has put
the lie to the claim that Petunia has not a drop of magical blood 
in her. Lily's sacrifice has made Petunia's blood quite powerfully 
magical until Harry turns 17.

Magpie:
I don't see how it has put a lie to anything, because it's explained as
being the family connection that makes for an ingredient in a magic spell
of someone else's. "Magical blood" means blood of a person who can do
magic. A family bond can exist in non-magical people as well. Peppermint is
not magical in itself, but it can be used in a magical Potion made by a
person who can do magic.

> Magpie:
> I mean, I know that the split between Wizards and Muggles is not as 
> clear as some Wizards would like because of Muggle-borns and Squibs. 
> But it's so far seemed clearer than someone being able to be both at 
> the same time. You say we just decide what we're going to call 
> Merope, but it still seems clear to me that Merope, even at her 
> death, has a abilities a Muggle can not have. Had she recovered, she 
> would have recovered her abilities like Tonks did, presumably. Just 
> as Petunia, if she's repressing her magic, is just as much a witch 
> as Hermione is when Hermione's not doing magic.

Ken:

I didn't say, or didn't mean to say, that you could be both at the same
time.
I did say that one person could be both at different stages in their life
and
that is very different. I'm not sure what abilities Merope had at her death
that a Muggle wouldn't have, do you have an example? 

Magpie:
She would presumably be able to receive magical treatment like Harry can,
and see Diagon Alley. I think she could probably floo. Also, she would have
her own abilities that she was currently unable to use. Just as Tonks is
still a metamorphagus when she loses her powers. When she's no longer
depressed, she can access them again.

Ken:
Well before her death Merope barely had magical power in that lovely scene
with her father and brother in the Gaunt hovel. She was a barely
functioning witch at that time. 

Magpie:
She was a witch at that time. She blew up a pot, as I recall. A Muggle
can't do that. Neville could and often does because his lack of confidence
keeps him from getting a handle on his powers. Merope clearly shows magical
abilities in doing that, whether she's functioning well as a witch or not.
It had already bloomed when we met her.

Ken:
Evidently she bloomed a bit when on her own but I don't see any 
reason to be confident that she would have recovered her power if she
had lived past Tom's birth.

Magpie:
Whether or not she did, she would still have been a witch who, because she
was depressed, was unable to do magic. Like Harry at times when he can't
make a spell work.  Merope bloomed in terms of being able to use her powers
better, but she already had them.

Ken:
 I consider 
Merope's loss of power as final and she became Muggle at that point.
I view it as being similar to the choice Arwen made when she married
Aragorn. She became human and mortal. Tonks' case is far different. One
of her powers was weakened by her furry problem. Otherwise she was
still such a powerfully effective witch that she remained on active duty
with the Order.

Magpie:
I think it's fitting you would compare her to Arwen, because Arwen is a
character in someone else's mythos, one that deals with people "becoming
mortal." In Rowling's world I don't think such a thing has ever been
suggested. Wizards and Witches can have trouble doing all sorts of magic
but they aren't Muggles and Muggles aren't Wizards. If somebody does magic
ever they were a wizard. A Muggle can never and could never do magic. Tonks
doesn't become a mortal or renounce being a witch when she stops being able
to change herself.If pressed I think both of them might even been able to
access them again for the right reason. A Muggle can't do that.


Ken:
Yes, of course, on both counts. And if she isn't going to use my splendid
idea, I hope she does come up with something equally splendid. I would 
not expect Petunia to do magic even if this notion turned out to be true.
I would just be wonderfully ironic if Petunia had been a nascent witch 
who refused the calling. I wouldn't expect it to be significant to the plot
in any way. I'd expect it to come out in a scene where Petunia reveals 
something else she knows that might be significant.

Magpie:
Wonderfully ironic maybe, but is it anything significant in the story? I
mean, what difference would it make? As I said, it's like a less
significant version of Neville's "could have been" the Prophecy boy, which
really means nothing to him. Only in this case, unlike with Neville, it
seems something that's being led up to as something important--and it
changes what a Muggle is (to include those who have or had magical
ability). Neville being the other possible Prophecy boy was just presented
as an interesting aside.

Ken:
Now wouldn't it be worth whatever damage you feel it would do to 
Rowling's veracity for the chance to "see" the expression on Uncle Vernon's
face when Petunia drops *that* shoe? But then I'd be just as happy if it
turned out the Petunia had merely been Snape's Muggle girlfriend for a
while ....

Magpie:
I wouldn't really be bothered if she wasn't completely honest because I
need to believe in her good character.:-) I feel like I just accept that
she's not saying something that so obviously is untrue because she's said
she doesn't do that and I can't recall her ever doing that. (She's not only
using the word "Muggle" in a new way, but saying Petunia will never has and
never will be able to do magic as well.) But it also comes down to my
reaction to the second bit, where I'm to care about Vernon's face when she
drops that shoe. Because I don't see why that would be a big moment at all.
Why would any of them care so very much? And why would we as readers care
if Vernon learned that Petunia has never and will never be able to do
magic, but in an alternate universe maybe she could have? It doesn't answer
anything left open in the text that I can see--that is, it could, but only
with further explanation (Petunia's having repressed abilities doesn't
explain any of her reactions to specific things any more than her being a
Muggle who doesn't like wizards does.) We've never gotten much insight into
how Vernon feels about Petunia, so it doesn't seem like a big revelation
for the story.

-