Book 7 theories - by Miss Ann Elk (ahem)

[Menolly]

If no one was with Voldy in G-dric's Hollow, could Pettigrew (or whomever) have done "accio wand" to retrieve it?

[sindatur]

Grabbing someone else's wand from a distance? Possible, but, people are generally fairly unimpressed by Pettigrew, which is why it was so easy to believe Sirius was the one who was the agressor when they found all that was left of poor Pettigrew, his finger. He did master becoming an Animagus, so, I'm not sure if he really is as wimpy a wizard as his reputation suggests or not.

Some believe the only reason Pettigrew was able to cause such an explosion, and coincidentally accidently blew his finger off, was because he used Voldemort's wand to do it.

[Cameraman Jenn]

Wow. Ok. Hrmm.... Ok, so Pettigrew was either at or went back to the scene of the crime (Potter's house) and kept the wand. So he must have hid it somewhere while posing as a rat for what, eleven or so years as Ron's rat? Oddly, I can buy that for some reason.

[sindatur]

Wow. Ok. Hrmm.... Ok, so Pettigrew was either at or went back to the scene of the crime (Potter's house) and kept the wand. So he must have hid it somewhere while posing as a rat for what, eleven or so years as Ron's rat? Oddly, I can buy that for some reason.

Well, McGonagall's glasses become cat markings, and she seems to have her wand when she transforms back to human, so, it seems personal effects transform with you.

[Cameraman Jenn]

Ok, I will take that as one issue resolved. Thanks Sin!

[Menolly]

Well, if OotP is any indication, I don't know if Jo does any rewrites per editor review...

Are you saying that a July release is possible, Menolly?

Jenn asked me this about five pages back but I never answered as I didn't have one.

However, with the report of Jo defacing hotel property upon the completion of the book on January 11th, and the announcement of a publishing date not long after, does anyone really think an editor went over the manuscript and suggested rewrites or changes?

[Cameraman Jenn]

Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like it's going straight into production which suits me just fine!

I found another inconsistancy. Petunia rants about Lily coming home for summers with pockets full of frogspawn and turning teacups into rats. Wouldn't turning teacups into rats in a muggle house be easily detected as underage magic?

[Menolly]

Depends on if it was summer homework, I guess.

If it was an assignment, I assume it was allowed. Unlike Dobby dropping the pudding...

[sindatur]

Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like it's going straight into production which suits me just fine!

I found another inconsistancy. Petunia rants about Lily coming home for summers with pockets full of frogspawn and turning teacups into rats. Wouldn't turning teacups into rats in a muggle house be easily detected as underage magic?

It would be detected as Magic (I don't believe they can detect the "underage part), so, if the only magical person residing there was Lily, then it would be assumed to be underage magic. In a house with other magical people, such as the Weasley house, it's not worried about, or identified, as there are no Muggles to hide from or protect, and Magic would be commonplace in the house.

[birdandbear]

Aren't the kids allowed to do magic at home after the third year or so?


Man, you guys are some theorizing fools......I gotta go read HBP again so I can keep up.

[Cameraman Jenn]

They can't do magic until they come of age which is at 17.

[Menolly]

But I know they're assigned homework over the summer...

[variol son]

And Hermione mentions in Philosopher's Stone that she has tried a few basic spells when she comes across Ron trying to turn Scabbers yellow.

[Cameraman Jenn]

Hrmmm...I guess I assumed that the homework was essays and reading which I think is indicated in book 4. I'll have to check. However, I think it's just an inconsistency since all the references to underage magic usage, ie Lily and Hermione are all in the first book and we don't learn about underage magic usage until book two.

[sindatur]

Hrmmm...I guess I assumed that the homework was essays and reading which I think is indicated in book 4. I'll have to check. However, I think it's just an inconsistency since all the references to underage magic usage, ie Lily and Hermione are all in the first book and we don't learn about underage magic usage until book two.

Or, it's possible that Underage Magic isn't as big a deal as we've been led to believe, and it's Harry's use of it that is the big concern, it certainly isn't in a magical household? (Although I tend to agree with you)

[Cameraman Jenn]

Well, both people who have been mentioned as performing underage magic would have been in muggle households at the time of the "crime" so it would have just as easily been detected.

[storm]

Hrmmm...I guess I assumed that the homework was essays and reading which I think is indicated in book 4. I'll have to check. However, I think it's just an inconsistency since all the references to underage magic usage, ie Lily and Hermione are all in the first book and we don't learn about underage magic usage until book two.

I agree 173.5% on the inconsistencies

...All through the books you see Harry doing underage magic and not getting KO'd for it. If you look at book three, primarily the introductory chapter, Harry uses "lumos" to give himself a night light to do the History of Magic essay. Part of the problem with writing a 7 book series is you may end up unintentionally double crossing yourself when it comes to intricate little plot details.

[Usivius]

not to beat a dead horse or anything, but isn't the rule about underaged magic in the muggle world have to do more specifically about performing magic in public?

I am often wrong, but I could have sworn there was something like that somewhere. Because in nearly every book there are accounts of Ron or Hermione and Harry doing little magical practicing things .... It's only when Harry causes his aunt to balloon that he gets in trouble...
no?....

[sindatur]

not to beat a dead horse or anything, but isn't the rule about underaged magic in the muggle world have to do more specifically about performing magic in public?

I am often wrong, but I could have sworn there was something like that somewhere. Because in nearly every book there are accounts of Ron or Hermione and Harry doing little magical practicing things .... It's only when Harry causes his aunt to balloon that he gets in trouble...
no?....

It's magic, in a non-magical environment, where the only witch/Wizard around is underage. So, in Diagon Alley or on the Train, it's not a big deal, because there are no Muggles around, and there is so much magic going on, the "detectors" have no way of knowing who is performing the magic. So, since Harry is the only magical person living in his neighborhood, if the magical detector detects magic, it must be Harry, which means it's illegal. The Weasley kids can do magic all day long at home, because it's a magical home, and no way to tell if it's underage use or not, plus no Muggles to witness. I'm assuming that "Lumos" may be a light spell, that maybe doesn't send off alarm bells, whereas a Patronus or blowing up a fat aunt perhaps are heavier magic that is easily detected. It's also possible, that is simply a prejudice against Harry specifically, maybe something to do with his protection? Probably just an inconsistency.

[Menolly]

IIRC, Harry did receive a warning when Dobby dropped Aunt Petunia's pudding.

But didn't Fudge laugh off Harry inflating Aunt Marge? Even though Harry tried running away because he thought he would get in trouble for doing that?

It wasn't until Fudge felt threatened by Harry saying Voldemort had returned that the charges of use of underage magic were pressed against Harry...