[HPforGrownups] Re: Under age magic - just wondering?

[Christy]

No: HPFGUIDX 188303

>bboyminn:
> 
> So, for the Ministry to take action for magic performed in
> most cases, that magic would have to be pretty significant.
> It would have to be enough to cause some type of incident
> that would get the attention of the Ministry.
> 
> Janelle:
> Going along with that, remember that Mr. Dursley had people over
to dinner- Muggles who had no idea about the wizarding world- when
Dobby dropped that dessert. Perhaps if Harry had accidentally done some
magic with only the Dursleys around he wouldn't have gotten a warning.
>
>Carol responds:
>Good point. There are two kinds of Muggles, those who know about magic and those who don't. Also, magic performed *on* a Muggle would >(normally) be punished more severely than magic performed *in
front of* a Muggle (obviously, the MoM alters this view on at least two
occasions, >Aunt Marge, when they're lenient with Harry, and the Patronus performed to save Dudley (and Harry himself), when they're unduly
harsh.) The >
<snip>
>At any rate, it's just another instance of JKR's indifference to consistency in details that readers quickly pick up on.

Christy:
I would suggest that the Ministry's reaction to Harry's Patronus in OOTP is the exception not the rule, and the warning he received in COS is more the norm. In OOTP Fudge, Umbridge and their "allies" wanted to discredit Harry and neutralizze the threat that perceived him to be (by claiming Voldemort had returned and therefore undermining the peace and security under Fudge's administration). The dementors failed, thanks to Harry; so, they took the opportunity to charge him with underage magic and "take him down" that way. Consequently, JKR wasn't inconsistent.

Christy




________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67 at yahoo.com>
To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, October 30, 2009 8:29:40 PM
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Under age magic - just wondering?

  
bboyminn:
> 
> So, for the Ministry to take action for magic performed in
> most cases, that magic would have to be pretty significant.
> It would have to be enough to cause some type of incident
> that would get the attention of the Ministry.
> 
> Janelle:
> Going along with that, remember that Mr. Dursley had people over to dinner- Muggles who had no idea about the wizarding world- when Dobby dropped that dessert.  Perhaps if Harry had accidentally done some magic with only the Dursleys around he wouldn't have gotten a warning.
>
Carol responds:

Good point. There are two kinds of Muggles, those who know about magic and those who don't. Also, magic performed *on* a Muggle would (normally) be punished more severely than magic performed *in front of* a Muggle (obviously, the MoM alters this view on at least two occasions, Aunt Marge, when they're lenient with Harry, and the Patronus performed to save Dudley (and Harry himself), when they're unduly harsh.) The Weasley Twins took care not to perform a spell when they used magic on a Muggle (and, yes, they clearly planned that little stunt) so that the magic wouldn't be detectable.

By the same token, Lily could very well have had frog spawn in her pocket and used it and other ingredients in a potion that she concocted with Sev, but the MoM wouldn't detect a potion, even if it were stirred with a wand, because it doesn't involve a spell.

That said, I suspect that she did perform a bit of magic at home, showing off a little and making her parents "proud to have a witch in the family" (and increasing Petunia's jealousy), but she probably didn't receive more than a reminder of the restriction against underage magic (and, possibly, the Statute of Secrecy, though it was irrelevant in her case since her family already knew about magic and Hogwarts).

At any rate, it's just another instance of JKR's indifference to consistency in details that readers quickly pick up on.

Carol, who has forgotten whatever else she intended to say :-(


   


      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]