Talk:Magic in Harry Potter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article combines the Muggle and Magical Schools (Harry Potter) pages.
The article Spells and spell-like magic in the world of Harry Potter, formerly List of spells in Harry Potter that ended up losing the list, has been merged here.It had a talk page, with no open discussions, viewable here.
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] The "Communicating with the dead" section
Rowling says it is impossible in her universe to resurrect the dead, so this section's claim that "raising the dead is not one of the things which a wizard or witch are expected to perform in the course of a normal career," is flatly wrong. This essay may be included eventually, but it needs to better parse its meanings. What exactly happens when the Resurrection stone is used? Are the dead really brought back? Or just representations of them? This needs to be cleared up before that essay can go back in. Serendipodous 15:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The Ressurrection Stone is just a misnomer, it basically just brings a spirit back to the real world, but it doesn't make them mortal again. --Jammy (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is exactly right, as shown by "The Tale of the Three Brothers" (HP7, and also readable in "The Tales of Beedle the Bard" on the Amazon website). -- 217.171.129.70 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Why the heck is this article listed among the Satanist and Occultist wikiprojects?
What exactly are we trying to prove here? That Christian fundamentalist loonies are right? Serendipodous 16:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know, perhaps someone should remove it. Obviously someone has put it there by mistake. --Jammy (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Gamp's Law Section
It is not mentioned anywhere in the series, nor in any other piece of canon, that the information in this section is true. While it is true that these things may not be magicked, it is confirmed nowhere that they are the Five Principal Exceptions to Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfiguration. Indeed, the section seems to me to be largely composed of OR, and I suggest that it is removed entirely from the article. --CBrock055 00:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure it's not mentioned anywhere in the series? I don't have the books with me, but this forum post suggests that Gamp's Law is mentioned by name in Deathly Hallows and that there are five exceptions to it. If I had the book, I could look it up. Anyone else? --clpo13(talk) 00:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I may have been a bit unclear in my post. What I meant was that the info in that section is completely non-canon and composed of OR, not that Gamp's Law was never mentioned. In the seventh book, yes, Gamp's Law is mentioned. However, the only exception that was canonically given was food. Whoever wrote that section of the article was clearly making assumptions, and, as far as I'm aware, mere assumptions do not qualify for inclusion in an encyclopedic article, even if it is about the laws of magic in a fictional world. =) --CBrock055 19:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. There's a reference in that section that points to a bunch of quotes by J. K. Rowling about the rules of magic, and I think most of that section came from there, but I'm not really sure. If you want to trim it down to what's just referenced in the book, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I think having a third opinion would be good before making such drastic changes. --clpo13(talk) 04:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Since when have love, life or information been "objects"? I very much doubt that these are three of the exceptions to Gamp's Law, although it's true that they cannot be conjured. -- 217.171.129.70 (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Clp013, the source you give here doesn't mention Gamps Law at all really, just says that there are laws. I do not recall a mention of information, but I will leave it there as I clean up the section, simply because I may well have missed it. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Potions?
There's some detail on spellcasting technique but barely a mention of potions, though from book 6 it's clear that not just ingredients but technique can make a big difference in potion making. Should there be a small section on magical potions too? JackSeoul (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Apparition
I woul dispute the claim that this being "sometimes accompanied by a distinctive cracking or popping sound" is "associated with ineptitude rather than success"; after all, the sound is clearly non-magical in cause, being that of the air molecules being violently forced out of the way (arrival) or rushing to fill the sudden vacuum (departure). I don't doubt that skilled magicians can counteract this with another spell (perhaps by Apparating the air that would be displaced on arrival, into the space left by departure?), but I don't see how failure to do this amounts to ineptitude at Apparition itself. -- 217.171.129.70 (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Portkeys
Portkeys should be listed after the Floo Network as they are both used for travel. --Bending Unit (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Bending Unit
[edit] Inferi
Should a comparison be made between Inferi and the bodies in the Dead Marshes in the Lord of the Rings? IIRC, in LotR, the bodies try to drag Frodo down don't they, similar to the Inferi trying to drown intruders to Voldemort's cave. Or am I clutching at straws? TheTrojanHought (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think that's what we consider to be OR. Sorry. It was an interesting point though. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 04:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
