GoF CH 7-9 Post DH look

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 181797

Mike wrote:
> Fred and George were what, 7 years old, when they tried to con Ron
into taking an Unbreakable Vow. That requires a wand, so they must
have had one or Fred's left buttock wouldn't have been in danger. I
think a lot of younger wizards borrow an older siblings wand to test
their magic. I'll bet it's actually encouraged more than than 
discouraged, even by parents. That "Reasonable Restriction for
Underage Magic", I don't find that reasonable, and I'll bet many
parents don't find it that reasonable either.

Carol responds:
They were five (Ron was three), and, IIRC, they "borrowed" a wand that
wasn't in use (Charlie's?). My personal opinion is that they had no
idea what they were doing and couldn't have performed the vow even if
they knew the spell and the ritual (Bellatrix must have done more as
Bonder than hold her wand over Snape's and Narcissa's hands, don't you
think? A nonverbal spell to create those rings of fire that bound
Snape to keep his word or die?). So even if one twin held his wand
over the clasped hands of the other twin and the second twin said
something like "Do you swear never to tell on us?" (or even, "Do you,
ronald, swear never to tell on us?") nothing would have happened. they
didn't have the knowledge or the control or the power (just as, if
Fake!Moody is telling the truth, the fourth-years couldn't have
performed Avada Kedavra even if all of them pointed their wands at him
and yelled the curse). However, Arthur's reaction was like that of a
parent who finds five-year-old children trying to have sex. Nothing
would happen because they don't know what they're doing, but,
nevertheless, you don't want them doing anything so stupid and
dangerous. (Or maybe kids playing with an unloaded gun would be a
better analogy; a loaded gun is another matter altogether because
something *could* happen and very likely would.)

At any rate, parents wouldn't give a five-year-old or a seven-year-old
a wand because they wouldn't have the sense to use it responsibly even
for spells that they could perform. I'll bet, though, that a
nine-year-old could perform a simple spell, even with someone else's
wand, if he pronounced it carefully, used the right wand movements
(learned from observing an adult), and concentrated on the intended
effects. And I don't doubt that kids from Wizarding families generally
came to school knowing how to perform at least a few spells and that
they often started practicing them as soon as they got their wands,
which might be as much as a year before they entered Hogwarts if they
happened to have a September 2 birthday (the cut-off date being
September 1). The MoM wouldn't know that the kids were using underage
magic because they can't tell who's performing it. I rather suspect
that Eileen Prince taught Sev a thing or two relating to both spells
and potions before he started school. How Hermione, a Muggle-born,
could perform underage without being detected, I don't know. Maybe she
learned the theory and the wand movements from a book and practiced
with a wooden spoon until she got on the Hogwarts Express, where she
tested the spells to see if they really worked. Or maybe it's a Flint.

At any rate, the emphasis is on "reasonable." You don't give kids like
the Weasley Twins a wand before they're ready, and it's possible that
Ollivander and other wandmakers won't sell one to a kid under eleven.
Severus, however, could have had his wand by January 9 and had nearly
eight months to practice before school started. Hermione, with her
September birthday, would have had eleven and a half months from the
time she received her Hogwarts letter and could buy her wand and
schoolbooks until school started, assuming that first-years get their
letters on their eleventh birthday instead of a few weeks before
school starts. (Of course, the new DADA professor wouldn't be hired
yet and she might have the wrong book, and, as I said, she couldn't
actually perform the spells at home without being detected.
Muggle-borns in general would be at a disadvantage compared with
children with at least one Wizarding parent willing to supervise and
teach them simple spells.

We don't get to see Draco learning Charms or Transfiguration, but he
could already ride a broom and seemed to have some experience with
Potions, so I suspect that he knew a few spells, too (including the
Leg-Locker Curse, which he performed on Neville, though I don't recall
exactly when). Could he have used something of the sort on Harry if
they'd actually had their duel? I suspect that he could have. OTOH.
Ron, who doesn't even have his own wand, has to learn Charms and
Transfiguration along with Harry. His parents, perhaps because of Fred
and George, seem to have enforced the underage magic ruling to the
best of their ability.

Alla:
> > Does it mean that uncontrollable magic at that age is still so
very strong and suddenly gets better at eleven? Or is it simply
because they are starting Hogwarts at that age?
> 
> Mike:
> HA! Harry blew up his Aunt Marge with uncontrolled magic at 13.
Nope, I think magic takes a while to control. And some don't ever
learn to control it that well. I'm thinking of someone like Stan here.

Carol:
I agree with Mike. If wizarding kids in general could learn to control
their own magic, they wouldn't need Hogwarts. We see in SS/PS that
even kids like Ron, a Pure-Blood, and Seamus, a Half-blood, have
trouble performing Wingardium Leviosa. Part of it is probably the
opportunity to practice (and a suitable wand, in the case of Ron and
Neville), part is confidence, and part is natural ability. (I'm not
sure about Stan, but even Crabbe and Goyle eventually learn the
Disillusionment Charm, so part may be maturity and part motivation.) I
think that power grows with age (cf. Fake!Moody's remark to the
fourth-years), and some spells require more practice than others. (Of
course, natural ability and an affinity for Charms or DADA or
Transfiguration helps, as does a wand that's suited to the witch or
wizard's natural talents.) In any case, even adult Wizards sometimes
lose control; in PoA, we see red sparks coming out of Snape's wand as
it senses his anger, and I suspect that the jar of dead cockroaches
flying at Harry is accidental magic, too. Normally, an adult wizard is
in control, has a suitable wand that has developed a bond with him,
and has mastered all the spells taught at Hogwarts and then some.
That's a lot different from blowing up Aunt Marge or making a slug
swell by pointing Daddy's wand at it. Wizarding kids are magical, but
unless they're Tom Riddle, they can't usually control that magic to
any great extent until they're about eleven and old enough to have
their own wands, as poor Ariana illustrates. and even then, they have
to start with simple spells (and simple potions) and work upward. The
nine-year-old who was Imperiused to kill his grandparents (HBP) didn't
succeed, IIRC.

Alla:
> > 
> > Okay, I am just wondering upon reread whether Bagman's brain is 
just that small. His colleague had been missing for months, is he
seriously thinking that she is lost?
> 
> Mike:
> And Goddlefrood thought he really was a Death Eater. Not that it 
takes a lot of smarts to be a DE. But the fact that he isn't at the
top of the food chain is logical enough reason to get why he got 
suckered by Rookwood. Oops, too soon. Sorry, Alla, I'll wait for that
chapter. ;)

Carol:
Well, in the chapter that you're waiting for, Moody says that Ludo has
always been dim and Ludo himself says, "I can't keep getting hit in
the head by Bludgers all my life, can I?" or something like that. So,
yeah, I'd say that Ludo is just dumb enough to believe that Bertha is
lost (and also, like Fudge, he's probably prone to wishful thinking).
Bertha's forgetfulness gives just enough credibility to his view of
things that he has no trouble believing it, and since he's in charge
of her department, Crouch and others who are critical of Ludo can't
intervene.

Carol, enjoying the look back at earlier books